


^':'!;<>i:V-i^ 






'M. 



m ■•.: 

I?-'-'? v., t 



. ^ 






•li. 



^^'S^'t'tr^ 



^^ 






«'i«?g'r 



lb V, '■■■■ ■« '^"■^*.i ^ 'I' f *•-• . k 









^ },V«e(K(tT7i»«<«Wl4rt> 



I 






^ f 







f 'l^' 

^'?»^! 









N ' 










l^ 



r . 



y 






^: 






f V '»; 



^. *b 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

©|ap* -_lnjn|ng|t !f 0,— 



biiei 



f .THS. ^ 



LNITED STATES OP AMERICA. 



The Baptist Position 



AS TO 



The Bii, tlie Mi aid tie Oriances, 



WITH A SPECIAL DISCUSSION OF 



CHRISTIAN UNION. 



By E. J. Forrester, 

Pastor Baptist Churchy Greenwood, S. C. 



BALTIMORE : 

R. H. Woodward & Company 

1893- 










^\ 



Copyright, 1S93, by 

E. J. Forrester. 



DEDICATION. 



To that People who always and everywhere 
have stood for the sovereign authority of the 
Bible, this little volume is dedicated by one 
who is glad to be among them. 



CONTENDS. 



Preface 7 

Introduction by Chas. Manly, D.D., President of 

FuRMAN University 9 

The Pillar and Ground of the Truth 12 

The Baptist Position as to the Bible: 

The Bib It Sovereign Authority 24 

The Baptist Position as to the Church : 

(a) Regenerated Membership 40 

{b) Officers 57 

(r) Independency 73 

The Paptist Position as to the Ordinances : 

7. Babtism: 

(a) The Act 90 

(b) What it is For.. 109 

(c) Who Ought to be Baptized 129 

(d) When and Why the Two Great Changes . . 151 

2, The Supper: 

(a) Three Great Ideas Underlying the Institu- 

tion 169 

(b) Who Ought to Observe it 181 

Discussion of Christian Union : 

What Christian Union is and is not ; How to Pro- 
mote ^ it and not to Prom^ote it 206 



PREKACE. 



The discourses embracecMn this volume were delivered in 
the Baptist meeting-house at Greenwood, S. C. The last 
was delivered first. 

On becoming pastor of the Baptist Church there, in the 
latter part of 1891, I found an arrangement which did not 
seem to be the best conceivable. Somehow, it had become 
the custom to close two of the three houses of worship in 
town every Sunday night. That, by some people, was called 
Christian Union. The second Sunday night in January, 1892, 
it was announced that there would be preaching every Sun- 
day night at the Baptist Church, and that the next Sunday 
night the subject of discourse would be Christian Union. 
The town was there. It is hoped that this explanation will 
put the reader in sympathy with the preacher as he goes 
through that discourse. 

With regard to the other discourses, let it be said that the 
purpose to undertake a series of that sort was formed about 
the time the one on Christian Union was preached. For 
various reasons the preparation and delivery of themt was 
deferred till this winter. Shortly after they were begun the 
Baptist Courier discovered what was going on, and made 
dtmand upon me for the manuscript. I agreed to furnish 
the series for that paper. As the publication in it was 
drawing to a close, brethren whose judgment and piety must 
command confidence began to suggest that the discourses 
would do good if put into prominent form in a volume. If 
it turns out so, I shall be very grateful. 

E. J. Forrester. 

Greenwood, S. C, March 11, 18Q3. 



INTRODUCTION. 



The circumstances that occasioned the discourses con- 
tained in this volume are sufficiently explained by the author 
in his preface. The demand for their publication is not sur- 
prising, for essentially the same circumstances exist in many 
communities in which there are Baptist churches, but where 
the Baptist position is either not understood or is wholly 
ignored, and these discourses have impressed many who 
have read them as especially suited to call attention to the 
Baptist position and to make it easily intelligible. 

The author would not for a moment countenance the infer- 
ence that never before had our essential denominational 
principles been attractively or effectively presented ; very 
far from it ; but it is certain that, for the widest usefulness, 
truth must be placed in a great variety of lights, and those 
discussed in this volume are of such importance that they 
deserve to have every advantage that can be afforded by 
variety of statement. 

To Baptist churches everywhere, whose members con- 
stantly need instruction, and to thoughtful Christians of other 
denominations, the truths herein presented are commended 
as worthy of earnest and devout attention, that the Baptist 
position in reference to important practical matters may be 
both understood and appreciated. 

Chas. Manly. 

Greenville, S. C. 



THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH 



12 THE TRUTH. 



THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE 

TRUTH. 

I HAVE announced that I would preach a series 
of discourses upon those doctrines for which 
Baptists are distinguished. I do not conceal from 
myself the fact that, in entering this field, I am 
entering one with regard to which there is a great 
deal of sensitiveness. Why this sensitiveness 
should exist I do not know. It is not so with 
regard to differences of opinion in other matters. 
A man might come into this audience and hear me 
take up some opinion of his on missions, or other 
religious subject, and grind his argument to pow- 
der, and his good sense and good humor might 
preserve him from being offended; but only let me 
take up some point upon which he and I differ 
denominationally, and, although I deal more gently 
with the argument by which he supports his opinion 
in that matter than I deal with his other argument, 
his good sense and good humor at once desert him 
and he is mortally offended. 

This sensitiveness has had a wide influence upon 



PILLAR AND GROUND. I3 

Baptists. It has made them shy about preaching 
their distinctive principles. I am nearly forty years 
old, and I have heard only two sermons in my life 
from Baptist preachers on baptism. I have been a 
preacher for fifteen years, and have yet never de- 
voted a sermon to the subject of baptism. I do not 
think my case is an exceptional one. 

There are people w^ho say we ought not to 
preach the doctrines which distinguish us as a de- 
nomination. This cry comes from the spirit of 
intolerance that beat and imprisoned our Baptist 
forefathers. That spirit comes now in the guise of 
an advocate of Christian courtesy. Away back in 
the early history of this country, when in some 
sections there was an established church, that 
spirit of intolerance was clothed with power to tor- 
ture our fathers for preaching their doctrines, and 
it used its power. But those heroes of the Lord 
came out of prison and from under the lash with 
apostolic faithfulness and daring, believing that 
they ought to obey God rather than men, and they 
preached their faith until they drove the church 
establishment out of the land and secured the inser- 
tion in the Federal Constitufion of a clause forever 
forbidding such establishment in these United 
States. The spirit of intolerance, thus shorn of its 



14 THE TRUTH. 

power to torture, continued its persecution by at- 
tempting to ignore Baptists on account of their 
small numbers and their lack of wealth and cul- 
ture. And now, when they have ceased to be few, 
and have become three millions of baptized believ- 
ers in this country, and when they have ceased to 
be poor and uncultivated, and have more money 
invested in educational institutions in the United 
States than any other denomination of Christians — 
now that same old spirit of intolerance comes in 
still another guise, saying: ^'H'sh, h'sh — don't 
mention your doctrines ; it is a breach of Christian 
courtesy!" 

Please understand me. I do not mean that all 
who speak thus are intolerant. By no means. It 
is a case where many, many people take up the 
cry without knowing its origin or what is back of it. 
We often see this principle illustrated in human 
affairs. How many thousands there are in any great 
political party who take up the slogan of the party 
without understanding the principles and traditions 
of the party. In the political contest in our State 
this year, the smallest proportion of the people on 
either side, I am pervaded, understood that what 
they saw was really the working out of forces that 
were embedded in the foundation of our State gov- 



PILLAR AND GROUND, 15 

ernment. The vast majority on both sides were 
acting in a drama which they did not fully under- 
stand. Pardon me, I am not talking politics ; I am 
illustrating a principle. 

I say the spirit of intolerance that tortured our 
Baptist fathers when it had power to do so, and 
that ignored them when it could no longer torture 
them, now, unable longer to ignore them, comes 
in the guise of an advocate of Christian courtesy 
and tells us we must not preach the doctrines for 
which they suffered on pain of being set down 
as disturbers of the peace of Christian commu- 
nities. 

This series of discourses will not be controver- 
sial in purpose. They are designed for the 
edification of this congregation, especially the 
younger members of it. Wherever an appeal to 
scholarship shall be found necessary to the settle- 
ment of any question, they will represent the best 
there is in the wide world. The appeal will be 
made invariably to pedobaptist scholarship. There 
is as good Baptist scholarship as any other under 
the shining sun, but my appeal will not be to that. 
The style of the discourses will be simple, suited 
to the comprehension of the youngest who will feel 
an interest in the subjects discussed. There will 



l6 THE TRUTH. 

be no harshness of tone or temper. A calm, 
straightforward discussion of Baptist doctrines will 
be given. If any wish ta hear that sort of dis- 
cussion, they will have an opportunity. If any do 
not wish to hear that sort of discussion — it is a free 
country. 

Brethren will allow a word of counsel. There 
may be one, or two, or three (I do not know that 
•it will be so, but there may be some) who will have 
criticisms and complaints to make. If so, just be 
kind enough to make them to the pastor. If you 
wish to do the most possible harm by such criti- 
cisms and complaints, air them on the streets; but 
if you wish to do the only possible good that can 
be done by them, bring them to the pastor. 

Again: Some of you may be getting nervous 
about the pastor's popularity. You think he is 
going ^Ho hurt himself by preaching these 
sermons. I imagine I can almost hear your hearts 
beat now! But don't you lie awake of nights 
fretting about the pastor's popularity. He is not 
going to lose an hour's rest on that account. He 
is not in the business of seeking popularity. He 
is only trying humbly to do his duty. There is no 
man who more highly prizes the esteem of his 
neighbors, but if that' has to be procured or 



PILLAR AND GROUND. I7 

retained at the cost of declining to do what he 
conceives to be duty, the price is too great and 
will not be paid. Let me give you this aphorism: 
The only part of the popularity of the Baptist 
pastor that will be of any service to the Baptist 
church will be his popularity in the Baptist church. 

My further remarks will be based on i Tim. 3, 
15: ''The church of the living God the pillar and 
ground of the truth." Let me say a few words in 
explanation of the term of the text. 

What does the Apostle mean by ''the truth?" 
Certainly it is not truth about anything and every- 
thing. He means what he elsewhere calls the truth 
as it is in Jesus, that truth which was so dear 
to His heart, and for which He suffered so much 
and finally laid down His life. 

What does he mean by "the church?" Not the 
meeting-house at Ephesus, where Timothy was 
laboring. It is true, he says, "The House of God, 
which is the church of the living God." But his 
language is figurative. He does not mean a literal 
house. Israel was often spoken of as the "house 
of Israel," by which was meant the people of 
Israel. So here the house of God means the 
people of God, and we are to understand "the 
church of the living God" to mean God's people^ 



l8 THE TRUTH. 

Christians everywhere — the spiritual body of 
Christ. 

What is meant by the church being ^'the pillar 
and ground of the truth?" Does not this same 
apostle say: ''Other foundation can no man lay 
than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ?" And does 
he not also tell .the Ephesian Christians that they 
''are built upon the foundation of the apostles and 
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief 
corner-stone?" Is that not equivalent to saying 
that the truth is the pillar and ground of the church? 
Is he not inconsistent, then, when he says that the 
church is the pillar and ground of the truth? No. 
The foundation holds up the house, and the house 
holds up and upholds the foundation. The house, 
by its standing, speaks forth the character of the 
foundation. If the foundation were insufficient the 
house would not stand. We are to understand from 
the language of the text that the church is to hold 
up and uphold the truth. 

I. It is to hold Mp the truth. This it must do in 
life. It must live a life of purity^ of gratitude, of 
joy, of love. It must, in some worthy measure, 
reproduce among men the life of its Lord. 

The church must hold up the truth also in the 
oral proclamation of the gospel. Our ministry is 



PILLAR AND GROUND^ I9 

a product of the spirit of preaching in the Church 
of Christ. All the real preaching done in this 
pulpit is, in a sense, the work of the entire church 
of Christ. When Spurgeon preached with such 
marvelous power he was not representing himself 
alone, but the whole Christian world. He repre- 
sented you and he represented me — he was a pro- 
duct of the spirit of preaching in the church. And 
so it is with all preaching. *^Like people, like 
priest." When the spirit of preaching runs low in 
the church there will be a dearth of preachers. 
''Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that He 
will send forth laborers into His harvest" — that the 
spirit of preaching may grow in the church. 

The church must hold up the truth in the ordi- 
nances as well as in life and in preaching. ''We 
are buried with Him by baptism into death; that, 
like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the 
glory of the Father, even so we also should walk 
in new^ness of life." Baptism symbolizes repen- 
tance. When a man by repentance has died to 
the world, to his past course of sin, he is then 
ready to be buried by baptism. His death is set 
forth by his burial. He is raised from the watery 
grave; and that symbolizes the fact that he is to 
live a new life — a life in Christ and for Christ. 



20 THE TR.UTH. 

The ordinance of the Lord's supper, like baptism, 
enshrines precious truth. "This do in remem- 
brance of me." "Ye do show the Lord's death 
till He come." "My flesh is meat indeed, and my 
blood is drink indeed." By this ordinance we not 
only remember Him for our edification, but we also 
set forth the great truths that without the shedding 
of blood there was to be no remission of sins, and 
that the new life which the emergence from the 
baptismal grave symbolizes must be nourished by 
the Bread of Life which came down from heaven. 
It will be seen, therefore, that in the ordinances of 
His house we have the great doctrine of sin and 
salvation, the truth as it is in Jesus, presented in 
symbols; and as we observe these ordinances we 
are holding up the truth to the world He would 
save. If you have been saved by Him, it is your 
duty to be baptized, and to participate in the ob- 
servance in the ordinance of His supper. 

2. // is also the office of the church to uphold the 
truth — to defend it. She must defend the truth 
against assaults from without. One of the com- 
monest assaults is made upon the ground of the 
bad lives of many who profess to be Christians. 
The enemies of the church make much of their 
opportunity at this point. When they make much 



PILLAR AND GROUND. 21 

of it, you are to defend the truth ! Who is it that 
is not living as they ought? Do not take them all 
together, but one at a time. Who is the offender? 
Is he not a better man than he was before he made 
profession of religion? If so, why not be fair 
enough to credit religion with the improvement? 
If he has not improved, let it be remembered that 
the Christian religion does not propose to make a 
man better upon the mere profession of it. It is 
not strange that a man should profess a good thing 
and not practice it. Has it not been well said that 
' 'hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue." It 
is to be expected that men will oftener profess virtue 
and practice vice than they will profess vice and 
practice virtue. Besides, consider how many, 
many people there are who profess the religion of 
Christ and are much better than they were before. 
Against assaults of whatever sort from without, the 
church is to defend the truth. 

She is, furthermore, to defend it against misap- 
prehensions from within. Here I come to the line 
along which my series of discourses will move. 
There is not, in the conception of these discourses, 
the remotest suggestion that those from whom we 
differ are not Christians, members of the spiritual 
body of Christ. T-hat they are members of that 



22 THE TRUTH. 

spiritual body is a part of the conception. That is 
implied and assumed. The discourses are not to 
be on the line of defense of the truth against 
assaults from without, but against misapprehensions 
from within. 



THE BAPTIST POSITION AS TO THE 
CHURCH. 



24 THE BIBLE 



THE BIBLE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. 

T TAKE up to-day the first and fundamental doc- 
^ trine of Baptists, which is that concerning the 
Bible. In his second letter to Timothy, 3d chap- 
ter, i6th and 17th verses, Paul says: ^^All scripture 
is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for 
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction 
in righteousness, that the man of God may be per- 
fect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 

Paul thought that the inspired word of God, as 
Timothy possessed it, was all that Timothy needed 
for a religious guide. That is the doctrine of 
Baptists with regard to the Bible. They believe 
that the inspired word of God is all that men need 
as a religious guide — as a guide to religious faith 
and practice. They believe that God has given 
men a revelation; that the Bible is that revelation; 
and that the man of God may be thoroughly fur- 
nished by that revelation. They hold, therefore, 
that the Bible is the sole, sufficient, sovereign rule 
of faith and practice, of doctrine and duty. With 
regard to Christian institutions, they hold, of 



SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. 25 

course, that the New Testament is the sovereign 
authority. The old Testament gives us valuable 
information, in its history, of God's dealings with 
His ancient people ; it gives us revelations of His 
character; the morality of its decalogue is universal 
and perennial in its binding force. But while the 
Old Testament is worth so much as a revelation of 
God's character and as a history of the preparation 
for the coming of the Saviour, we can never go 
back to it for instruction about Christian institu- 
tions. To do that would be to ignore the great fact 
of progress in God's revelation, and it would be to 
go back among the shadows for the substance. 

The Baptist doctrine concerning the Bible, then, 
is this: The Bible — and, as to Christian institu- 
tions, the New Testament — is the sole, sufRcient, 
sovereign religious authority. Does some brother 
ask, in astonishment, whether that doctrine is 
peculiar to Baptists? Why, yes, brother, it is a 
fact; that doctrine is peculiar to Baptists. Can 
there be any harm in preaching that ^'Baptist 
peculiarity?" There are people that say that we 
must not preach our ' 'peculiarities." I am per- 
suaded that people who talk that way have not 
thought the matter through. I think they do not 
understand all that is implied in what they say. 



26 THE BIBLE 

They have not considered that, if Baptists hold 
important views, they ought to set forth those views, 
at proper times and in proper ways; and that, if 
they have not important views w^hich distinguish 
them from other denominations of Christians, they 
ought to cease to be Baptists and disband. The 
same rule, I am sure, applies to all denominations. 
Any denomination that has views which justify 
separate existence, is bound to promulgate those 
views. If those views are of sufficient importance 
to justify a separate existence, they are important 
enough to create a duty for their promulgation. 
If they are not of sufficient importance to make it 
the duty of those who hold them to promulgate 
them, then they are not of sufficient importance to 
justify those who hold them in maintaining a sepa- 
rate organization as a denomination; and it is the 
manifest duty of such denomination to disband and 
allow itself to be absorbed in some other denomi- 
nation which does stand for doctrines worth pro- 
mulgating and that justify its separate existence. 

The man who says that denominational peculiar- 
ities . should not be preached, is virtually saying 
that his denomination has no right to a separate 
existence. That is what he is saying, without 
knowing that so much is implied in what he says. 



SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY, 



27 



That is what he is saying, no matter to what de- 
nomination he belongs. It is a thousand pities that 
men should talk that way. My advice to all such 
talkers, if I had an opportunity to advise them, 
would be : Either think more on the subject or 
talk less. I am sure that, if they would think the 
matter through, they would take the right view of 
it; and then they would talk right about it. They 
w^ould see that the very same reasons which justify 
the separate existence of any denomination make it 
the duty of that denomination to teach the distinc- 
tive doctrines upon which its existence rests. 

I said that the doctrine that the Bible, and, as to 
Christian institutions, the New Testament, is the 
sole, sufficient, sovereign authority in religion, is a 
doctrine peculiar to Baptists. They and they alone, 
among the great historic denominations, have never 
appealed to anything but the Bible for any part of 
their faith and practice as Christians. I should 
not wonder if this statement were regarded by 
some people as a reflection upon those who are not 
Baptists. But I am sure nothing is farther from 
my purpose than to cast reflections upon 
other Christians — other members of the spiritual 
body of Christ. There are many, many people 
not Baptists whose feet I would gladly wash, not 



28 THE BIBLE 

as an ordinance of Christ's church, but as a loving 
ministry to those who bear His precious image. 
But Baptists must have their due. No man must 
take their crown. They themselves must know 
where they stand and what they stand for in this 
old world of ours. Their position must be inter- 
preted to them. 

Having thus disclaimed any desire or purpose 
to reflect upon Christians who are not Baptists, in 
my statement that to hold to the sole and absolute 
authority of the Bible in religion is a Baptist pecu- 
liarity, I proceed to justify my statement as one 
that is correct. 

The Romish church does not consider it any re- 
flection upon her to say that she appeals to other 
authority besides that of the Bible. She appeals 
to what the church has done or believed in the 
past — to the decisions of councils and popes. Ac- 
cording to her own language, she appeals to the 
Bible and tradition — not to the Bible alone, but to 
the Bible and tradition. She exactly reproduces for 
Christendom the position held by the Jewish teach- 
ers at the coming of Christ. They laid great stress 
upon the ' 'tradition of the Elders,'' insomuch that 
Jesus said to them: ''Thus have ye made the com- 
mandments of God of none effect by your tradition ;" 



SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. 29 

and again: '*In vain they do worship Me, teacli- 
inix for doctrines the commandments of men." The 
Romish church does not shrink from this position 
of placing tradition alongside of the Bible as of 
equal authority with it. She stands unfalteringly 
at that end of the line. She takes her position 
there boldly. She knows where she stands, and 
is quite willing that all the world should know it. 
At the other end of this line stand the Baptists, 
utterly discarding tradition as having any authority 
whatever for determining what they shall believe or 
practice in matters of religion. They say: ''The 
Bible alone has authority; we shall have a 'thus 
saith the Lord' for our doctrines and ordinances 
and church organization; we will have no other 
authority." 

These, now, are the antipodal positions— these 
are the two ends of the line ; and, as the Romish 
church stands alone at one end, so the Baptists 
stand alone at the other. The other great historic 
derLominations stand along between these two 
positions. 

I suppose that all the denominations would 
warmly claim that they stand with the Baptists 
regarding the authority of the Bible. The great 
church standards put the supreme authority of the 



30 . THE BIBLE 

Bible as one of their articles. Martin Luther 
said: ^^The foundation of Articles of Faith is the 
word of God." The famous saying of Chilling- 
worth is familiar: ^iThe Bible, the Bible alone, is 
the religion of Protestants." The Creed of the 
Church of England says: ''Holy scripture con- 
taineth all things necessary to salvation, so that 
whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved 
thereby is not to be required of any man that it 
shall be believed as an article of the faith, or be 
thought requisite or necessary to salvation." The 
Westminster Confession, the standard of Presby- 
terianism, has equally as clear a deliverance re- 
specting the authority of the Bible. I suppose, 
therefore, that all the great denominations would 
protest against the assertion that the doctrine of 
supreme authority for the scriptures is a Baptist 
peculiarity; and they would support their protest 
by pointing to their creeds- — noble declarations of 
evangelical faith. But still I affirm, knowing full 
well what I say, that this doctrine is a peculiarity 
of Baptists. 

I shall not go into any extended and tedious proof 
of this affirmation. Enough is enough; and I will 
give enough. I confine myself to two points. 

I. The first proof is drawn from Pedobaptist 



SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. 3 1 

appeal to creeds. A creed may be an admirable 
thing. I am not saying that a creed may not have 
its place. As I have already said, some of the 
creeds of Christendom are noble expressions of 
evangelical faith. But the creed, if kept in its 
proper place, can be no more than an expression of 
beliefs. To exalt it into the position of an author- 
ity is to abuse it. When I lay my hand upon a 
creed, and say: ''This document is a concise state- 
ment of what I believe the Bible to teach with 
regard to the great leading subjects treated by it, 
and, therefore, this is an expression of my religious 
faith," I am on safe ground. There can be no 
objection to any man or any company of men set- 
ting forth what they believe to be the teaching of 
the Bible. But when I lay my hand upon a creed, 
and say: ''This contains the teaching of the Bible 
on the subjects here treated, and you must accept 
the creed or be put down as a heretic," then I have 
gone too far. I have set up another standard than 
the Bible as the test of orthodoxy; I have put in 
that place a human interpretation of the Bible, an 
interpretation made, perchance, two centuries ago; 
I have denied you the right to interpret the Bible 
for yourself, and the privilege of entering with me 
upon a fresh examination of the scriptures to see 



32 THE BIBLE 

whether these things be true; I have said you must 
take the interpretation of others or be .read out of 
the kingdom as a heretic — in short, I have set up 
the creed, 7iot as an expression of beliefs in zvhieh 
you and I are agreed^ but as an authority by whichy 
where zve differ ^ you shall be adjudged heterodox and 
I orthodox. 

Now, this last is what all the great historic 
denominations have done. They have made 
creeds the test of orthodoxy. The Church of 
England has its thirty-nine articles, its Romish 
liturgy, and its high church canons. As a con- 
dition of ordination, its clergy must subscribe to 
those articles; and, while they may not preach in 
accordance with the articles, they must be sure to 
put all honor on the prayer book. About two 
hundred years ago, Benjamin Keach, an English 
Baptist preacher, wrote a little book containing 
an expression of Baptist views. It was a 
modest little primer. It was condemned as 
^'seditious and venomous" and *' contrary to 
the Book of Common Prayer and the Liturgy 
of the Church of England"- — contrary, not 
to the Bible, mark you, but to the Book of 
Common Prayer and the Liturgy of the Church 
of England. It is well known that an appeal to 



SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. 33 

the Westminster standards is final. If its ministers 
speak not according to the Confession and the 
Catechism, they are regarded as condemnable, and 
are condemned. Likewise, in the Methodist 
church, a question of orthodoxy is setded by 
reference to the Book of Discipline. What is true 
of the denominations mentioned is true of all those 
organized about a great historic creed. The 
creed, instead of the Bible, becomes the test of 
orthodoxy, and the final appeal. 

In contrast to all these sects, the Baptists have 
always persisted in maintaining the true use of 
creeds. They have no authoritative creed to whose 
wording all must bow. Nor have they any 
authoritative church directory to which all church 
custom must conform. And yet no sect in Christen- 
dom presents to the world a spectacle of greater unity 
of faith or uniformity in practice than is presented 
by this great denomination, existing in thousands 
of little ecclesiastical commonwealths scattered all 
over the world and placed in all sorts of circum- 
stances. This phenomenon of unity and uni- 
formity is a marvel which other denominations can 
not understand. It is due to the fact that we have 
no authoritative creed, but insist upon going 
directly and anew to the Bible for the settlement of 
all questions that arise in our church life. 



34 THE BIBLE 

2. The second proof of my affirmation is drawn 
from the practice of infant baptism by the Protest- 
ant Pedobaptists. In the second quarter of this 
century, a movement was begun in the Church of 
England that has gone into history as the ^'Tracta- 
rian Movement," so called because the promoters 
of the movement advocated their views in a series 
of tracts. Those tracts, written by . Church of 
England clergymen, appeal to infant baptism as a 
proof that the church accepts the authority of tra- 
dition, holding that this rite is practiced upon 
tradition alone, and that concerning it the scriptures 
teach nothing. One of the greatest teachers 
American Congregationalism ever produced said: 
*'If anybody ask me. Where is your text for bap- 
tizing children? I reply. There is none. And if I 
am asked. Then why do you baptize them? I say. 
Because it is found to be beneficial." One of the 
best scholars and ablest commentators American 
Congregationalism has ever produced said with 
regard to infant baptism: '^Commands or plain 
and certain examples in the New Testament rela- 
tive to it I do not find; nor, with my views of it, do 
I need them." A great Lutheran scholar and his- 
torian, after fully and freely conceding that infant 
baptism did not come from the Bible, advocates re- 



SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. 35 

taining it, but says that, to do so, 'Hhe doctrine of 
Biblical baptism mttst be reformed.^' In order to 
retain 'infant baptism, we must reform the doctrine 
of BibHcal baptism! In other words, to carry out 
our wishes we must reform the Bible whenever it 
does not conform to our wishes! Indeed, the case 
has reached the point where any candid and schol- 
arly defense of the rite must appeal to the Fathers 
or something outside of the scriptures. 

The Catholics understand this thoroughly, and 
have always understood it. In the time of 
Charles II, there was in London a Baptist 
preacher named Ives, who was a very able 
debater. The king invited him to come to court 
and hold a discussion with a Catholic priest. He 
also asked Mr. Ives to put on the robe of an 
English clergyman. The Baptist preacher did 
not see that the king intended a deception and a 
little fun ; and he complied with what seemed an 
innocent request. The priest took him for a 
clergyman of the English Church. He pressed 
the priest with the point that certain doctrines of 
the Catholic Church were not apostolic because 
not found in apostolic writings. The priest replied 
that argument would be of as much force against 
infant baptism, which was also unknown in the 



^6 THE BIBLE 

apostolic age. The Baptist preacher readily 
granted that, and replied that he rejected infant 
baptism for that very reason. The priest indig- 
nantly brought the discussion to a close, saying 
that he had been deceived; he had been invited 
to debate with a Church of England clergyman, 
while it was evident this was an Anabaptist 
preacher. 

A Romish bishop in this country a few years 
ago said to a minister of a Pedobaptist denomi- 
nation: ''We Romanists have little to fear from 
you ; the controversy is not between us and you ; 
it is with the Baptists." Over and over again 
Romanists have expressed themselves in a similar 
way. What they mean is, that Baptists are the 
only people w^ho can oppose them to best advan- 
tage, because Baptists are the only people who 
stand at the other end of the line from them. Bap- 
tists can say to them: ''You did not get auricular 
confession or mariolatry out of the Bible." To 
that they can only reply: "We accept the 
authority of tradition," and the battle is joined at 
that point, the question being whether tradition 
should be accepted as a religious authority. But 
when the Pedobaptist says to the Romanist: "You 
did not get auricular confession and mariolatry out 



SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. 37 

of the Bible/' the Romanist has only to answer: 
''And, likewise, you did not get infant baptism out of 
the Bible;'' and the Pedobaptist can say no more, 
for the Catholic can show, not only that it is not in 
the Bible, but also when and why it arose in the 
history of Christianity — a history with which the 
Romanist is quite familiar. 

Let me repeat, in conclusion, that w^hile the 
great historic Pedobaptist denominations have 
placed in their creeds an article declaring that the 
Bible is the sovereign authority in religion, they 
have not consistently adhered to that doctrine, but 
have, unconsciously no doubt, supplemented that 
authority with something else, shrinking from a 
rigid application of the principle; and that Bap- 
tists, on the other hand, have unfalteringly main- 
tained that they need no authority but the Bible, 
and will have no other. From this first and funda- 
mental doctrine of the Baptists come all the other 
doctrines for which they are distinguished. 

The next discourse will be upon the Baptist 
Doctrine Concerning the Church. 



THE BAPTIST POSITION AS TO THE BIBLE. 



40 THE CHURCH, 



REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. 

T AM to speak to-day upon the Baptist doctrine 
^ concerning the Church. I introduce the dis- 
cussion with two passages of scripture: ''He is 
the Head of the Body, the Church." Col. i: i8. 
''What thou seest, write in a book, and send it to 
the seven churches." Rev. i: ii. 

The Baptist doctrine concerning the Church 
may be stated thus : The Church is the body of 
which Christ is the head; it comprises all who are 
in vital union with Christ. Thus conceived it is 
invisible in the sense that what constitutes it 
the Church is invisible, viz, the vital union of its 
members with Christ; but it manifests itself in 
local organizations, or churches consisting of 
baptized believers, having elders and deacons, 
and being independent of each other and separate 
from the State. 

It will be seen that the doctrine thus stated takes 
account of two general aspects of the Church; 
that is to say, its spiritual constitution and its local 
organization. Those two aspects are presented 



REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. 4I 

by the two passages of scripture with w^hich I 
have introduced this discourse, and which rep- 
resent the whole of the New Testament teaching 
on this subject. There is, first, the mystical or 
spiritual body of Christ, consisting of all true 
believers; and then there are local organizations 
consisting of persons who profess to belong to the 
mystical body, persons who claim that they are 
believers, and who have been baptized. 

It is proper, in accordance with this doctrine of 
the church, to speak of the Church of Christ and 
also of a church of Christ; but it is not proper to 
say tlie Baptist Church if you mean thereby an 
aggregation of Baptist churches. If you say ^'the 
Church of Christ," meaning that body of w^hich 
Christ is head, you are on scriptural ground; 
if you say ^'a church of Christ," meaning a local 
organization of baptized believers, you are still on 
scriptural ground; but if you say '^the Baptist 
Church," meaning an aggregation of Baptist 
churches, you have no scripture warrant for your 
language. These local churches denominated 
^ ^Baptist" are organized, we believe, according to 
the New Testament model. They w^ere named 
'^Baptists" by people who did not like them. We 
have no objection to the designation. It hurts no- 



42 THE CHURCH. 

body, and is convenient. Any characteristic of 
those churches that distinguishes them from other 
Christian organizations existing alongside of them 
might be taken to designate them, and might be 
coupled with their scriptural designation as churches. 
Just as the New Testament speaks of the church 
of Ephesus and the church in Smyrna, to distin- 
guish one from the other, so we may speak of 
''the church at Greenwood," and ''the church at 
Abbeville," to distinguish one from the other, and, 
for the same reason, of the "First Church of 
Greenville," and the "Pendleton Street Church of 
Greenville." In these cases, w^e have only used 
certain words to distinguish one local church from 
another. In a similar way, we may say the "Bap- 
tist Church of Greenwood" to distinguish our 
church from other local organizations. By doing 
this we are not surrendering the idea that an or- 
ganized church is always a local body. But that 
idea ivoicld be surrendered if we spoke of "the 
Baptist Church of South Carolina," or "the Bap- 
tist Church South," or "the Baptist Church of 
America," meaning thereby an aggregation of 
local churches; and, in that case, we should be 
adopting an idea not contained in the New Testa- 
ment, those holding different views from ourselves 



REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. 43 

being witnesses. In the New Testament the word 
^'church" is used in only two senses. In one it 
applies to the mystical body of Christ; in the other, 
to a local organization of baptized believers ; in no 
case to an aggregation of such local organizations. 
Baptists are the only people who hold the doctrine 
of the church which I have stated. Others may 
hold some part of that doctrine, but none besides 
Baptists adhere to it in its entirety. The Romanists 
know nothing of a church. With them it is tlie 
church. They confound the spiritual constitution 
of the Church of Christ with its external organiza- 
tion. The mystical body of Christ is identical with 
the ''Holy Catholic Church." To be in that 
church IS to be saved; to be out of it is to be lost. 
Protestant Pedobaptists recognize the distinction 
between the spiritual constitution of the mystical 
body and its external organization, but have never 
perceived it as clearly nor emphasized it as strongly 
as Baptists. This is shown by their language with 
regard to the church. For example, they speak of 
''the Church of England," '^the Scottish Church," 
"the Methodist Episcopal Church, South," "the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, North," "the South- 
ern Presbyterian Church," "the Northern Presby- 
terian Church," and so on; and they speak of 



44 THE CHURCH. 

these as ' 'Branches of the Church." Now, the 
only branch of a church that Baptists and the Bible 
know anything about is an individual man, woman 
or child who has been regenerated by the Spirit of 
God and brought into vital union with Christ, the 
true Vine. There is no orgmiized branch. The 
branch is an individual, whether you think of the 
the church in one or the other of the scripture 
significations of the term, w^hether you think of it 
as the mystical body of Christ, composed of 
all true disciples, or as a local organization 
of persons who profess discipleship to him. 
It is not speaking according to the scriptural 
and Baptist doctrine of the Church to call an 
aggregation of local societies a ' 'branch of the 
Church." That language indicates a confused 
idea as to what the Church is. It points to a no- 
tion that organized Christendom is the Church of 
Christ. That, however, is not true in any scrip- 
tural sense. It is not true that organized Christen- 
dom is identical with the mystical body of Christ. 
There are confessedly many individuals within the 
limits of organized Christendom who are not in 
vital union with Christ, and so are not members of 
the Church in the sense that the Church is his 
body. On the other hand, there must be some 



REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. 45 

real disciples who have not been connected with 
any part of organized Christendom. This must be 
so at any time, if for no other reason, simply 
because they have not had opportunity to become 
so connected since their spiritual change occurred. 
There are, then, some members of the body of 
Christ who are no part of organized Christendom, 
just as there are individuals connected with or- 
ganized Christendom who are not members of the 
body of Christ ; and organized Christendom is, 
therefore, not identical with the body of Christ. 
Nor can it be said, of course, that organized 
Christendom is identical with any local organiza- 
tion of Christians. Thus we see that Protestant 
Pedobaptists have brought in a meaning of the 
word ''Church" not found in the New Testament, 
and do not hold to the simple distinction between 
the Church of Christ and the churches of Christ 
which the New Testament makes and which is 
firmly held by Baptists. 

Let it be understood, then, that Baptists, stand- 
mg . by the Bible, say that there are, strictly 
speaking, only two proper senses of the word 
''Church." In one of these senses it desigrnates 
that body of believers of which Christ is the head. 
In the other sense, it designates a local organiza- 



46 THE CHURCH. 

tion of baptized professors of personal faith in 
Christ. In the first sense, there can be only one 
church; in the other, there may be very many 
churches. Upon the church under the first of 
these aspects it is needless that I should dwell; 
but upon the church under the other aspect I must 
dwell at some length. Indeed, I can not finish 
the treatment in this discourse without making it 
much too long. 

I said that the Baptist idea is that a local church 
must be composed of baptized believers. I lay 
stress now upon the word '^believers," and not 
upon the word * ^baptized." The latter involves 
the question of baptism, and that will come up for 
treatment under the head of the Baptist doctrine 
concerning the ordinances. A church must be 
composed, then, of believers, and not of unbe- 
lievers, or of believers and unbelievers. The 
membership is not to be unregenerate or mixed. 
There must be a profession of faith on the part of 
every one who is united to a church of Christ. 
This is the teaching of the New Testament. The 
apostolic letters to the churches are addressed to 
people who profess to be regenerate, and who are 
assumed to be what they profess. They are 
called ^^saints," ^'sons of God," ^'faithful breth- 



REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. 47 

ren," **sanctified in Christ Jesus." They are told 
that they are the ''temple of God," and that the 
Holy Spirit dwelleth in them. Such ex- 

pressions surely could not be used in reference 
to the members of the apostolic churches, 
if they were not supposed to be regenerate. 
This state of things in those churches was in har- 
mony with the order of the terms in the Great 
Commission, which provides for making disciples 
first and baptizing them afterwards. It w^as also in 
harmony with the apostolic preaching, which 
invariably put faith before baptism. Still further, 
it was in harmony with what we know of apostolic 
practice, as for example, on the day of Pentecost 
they that received the word preached by Peter 
were baptized. The new testament teaching is 
that people are to believe before they are baptized 
and admitted to church membership. For this 
teaching of the New Testament Baptists have 
stood alone. The Roman Catholics, holding^ that 
their organization is the Church of Christ, in which 
alone there is salvation, receive all who will allow 
themselves to be received. The other denomina- 
tions generally put in their creeds a definition of the 
church which excludes from membership any but 
regenerate persons, making the church a congre- 



48 THE CHURCH. 

gation of ''faithful," or ''scripturally regenerate" 
men. The definition, indeed, is liable to the 
charge of confusing the two senses in which the 
New Testament uses the word ''church," since the 
word is there used to denote the spiritual body of 
Christ, in which case it is not a "congregation," 
or it is used to denote a congregation of believers, 
in which case it is not the Church. In other words, 
there is nothing which, according to the New^ Tes- 
tament, can be, at the same time, both the Church 
and a congregation. And that is what these Con- 
fessions say, viz., that the church is a congregation 
of regenerate men. 

But my object just now is not to criticise the 
definition of the church as found in the creeds of 
Protestant Pedobaptist denominations. My pur- 
pose is rather to give them credit for recognizing 
faith as a condition of church membership. While 
giving them credit, however, for that, it is obliged 
to be said that they do not stand by their creeds. 
There is no exception to this remark. To be a 
Pedobaptist is to set aside this declaration of the 
creeds. To be a Pedobaptist is to believe in infant 
baptism; and to believe in infant baptism is to 
stand for mixed church membership. Pedobaptists 
who believe in the spirituality of the church feel 



REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. 49 

that infant baptism is an embarrassment, if it be 
admitted that baptized infants are members of the 
church, and hence they are not willing to regard 
them as members, and endeavor to place them in 
some other relation to the church. Here is a 
mighty task. These infants are either members or 
not members. If they are members, what becomes 
of the spirituality of the church ? Have not unbe- 
lieving people been admitted to membership in a 
church which is held to be spiritual and composed 
of regenerate persons ? If they are not members, 
what relation do they sustain to the church ? Why 
have they, without consent, been subjected to what 
is regarded as the rite that introduces to church 
membership ? There is no logical escape. The 
baptized infants are church members, in which case 
they are entided to all the privileges of church 
membership, participation in the Lord*s supper 
included; or they are not church members, in 
which case their baptism was a thoroughly useless 
performance," without significance or. benefit. If 
they are church members they are either regenerate 
or unregenerate ones. If regenerate, their regen- 
eration has been accomplished by baptism; if 
unregenerate, church membership has been con- 
ferred upon persons knovv^i to be unregenerate. 



50 THE CHURCH. 

In one case, yon have unregenerate church mem- 
bership; in the other, baptismal regeneration. In 
either case, the spirituality of religion and the 
church is undermined. You have either no regen- 
eration, or a mechanical regeneration, as a condition 
of church membership ; and that is not in accord 
with the definition of the church as ''a congrega- 
tion of faithful (scripturally regenerate) men." 

To comprehend this confusion, this inconsistency 
between Protestant creed and practice, we must 
bear in mind that the Protestant Reformation 
stopped short of thorough work. Romish ideas 
were not completely eradicated. A residuum of 
Romanism was brought over into the Reformed 
churches. Protestantism did not, for example, 
get entirely rid of the idea that the church stands 
in a mediating position ; that is to say, that con- 
nection with the church by baptism puts one in the 
channel of grace — somehow or other makes his 
salvation more certain. The Romanish idea is 
that such connection with the church is necessary 
to salvation. Protestantism could get no farther 
from that idea than to hold that connection with 
the church by baptism puts one in the way of 
being saved. This explains the fact that mixed 
membership, through infant baptism, has been 



REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. 5 I 

retained in the Pedobaptist denominations. A 
Church of England clergyman in college lectures 
used this language : ''Why must parents and 
friends be careful to get their children baptized? 
Because by this ordinance their original sin is 
washed away and they are grafted into the body of 
Christ ; so that if they die before they commit 
actual sin, they are undoubtedly saved ; and if 
this be neglected by their fault, they must answer 
for putting the salvation of the children to so great 
hazard. 

Yes, Baptists stand alone for a regenerated 
church membership. It is in consequence of their 
position in this matter that their preachers so con- 
sistently urge people to comxe to Christ to become 
Christians, instead of urging them to join the 
church. Any attentive hearer must observe this 
difference between the preaching and especially 
the conversation of Baptist and Pedobaptist 
preachers. Baptist preachers have little to say 
about the church and joining the church; Pedo- 
baptist preachers have much to say about the 
church and joining the church. A Baptist 
preacher would be considered entirely unbaptistic 
if he should ask any person to join a church in 
order to induce some relative or friend to jom. 



52 THE CHURCH. 

Baptists wish people to become church members 
because they have already become Christians, and 
only when they have already become Christians, 
and not because somebody else has become a church 
member or induce somebody else to become a 
church member. Anyone who knows the facts 
knows that Baptists are different from other 
Christians at this point. He knows that ministers 
and members of other denominations often urge 
people to become church members on the ground 
which I have just mentioned and others like it, 
and that they even urge members of one denomi- 
nation to pass to another in the hope of inducing 
some relative or friend who is not a church 
member to become one. Baptists stand out 
against anything of that sort as very wrong and 
very hurtful teaching. Any such teachinj^ as 
that is putting the church in a mediating position 
between God and men; it is holding that church 
membership puts men in the channel of grace; it 
is undermining the spiritual nature of the church ; 
and it logically leads to a special priesthood, and 
to all the other errors of Romanism. It is not 
said that this leads, as a matter of fact and practice, 
to all the errors of Romanism. Protestants are 
kept back from that; and they are kept back., no 



REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. ^3 

doubt, very largely by the influence of Baptist 
teaching. What I do say is that this idea of 
joining a church before becoming a Christian in 
order to put oneself in the channel of grace 
logically^ leads to all the errors of Romanism. It 
does ; that because it makes the church a 
mechanical, external thing, destroying its sfjiritual 
character; and as soon as you have done that, you 
have put into the idea of the church the germ of 
all Romish errors. Baptists stand like a rock, and 
have ever thus stood, against being joined to a 
church before being joined to Christ. With them 
it is, ^'Come to Christ first, and then come into 
church membership." 

Of course, the objection is raised that Baptists 
have unconverted members in their churches. 
Baptists do not deny that. They have never 
claimed that their churches have no unconverted 
members. Nor do they conceive that the ex- 
istence of unconverted members in their churches 
is any argument against their doctrine that only 
regenerated people ought to be admitted to church 
membership. They hold that a church organized 
according to the New Testament model is com- 
posed of persons who profess faith in Christ, and 
who are to be presumed to possess the faith they 



54 THE CHURCH. 

profess until their conduct disproves their pro- 
fession. That some members are unregenerate 
does not prove that Baptists are not following the 
apostolic model ; for there were unregenerate 
members in apostolic churches. That some mem- 
bers of Baptist churches are unregenerate only 
proves that we are not omniscient, and have no 
means of determining with absolute certainty who 
are regenerate and who are not, and can only 
make a creditable profession of faith the condition 
of church membership. If Baptists were obliged 
to do so, they could easily show that it is better 
to require a profession of faith as a condition of 
church membership, even though this bar should 
be overridden by a much larger number of unre- 
generate men. They could show that to abolish 
this condition would be to take a position which 
not only logically leads out to identifying the 
church with the whole community, but which has 
actually led to that over and over again in history ; 
they could show that it would be to take a position 
that leads out to identifying the church with the 
world, as did Charles Kingsley when he held that 
^^the church is the world, lifting itself up into the 
sunshine ; the world is the church, falling into 
shadow and darkness," or as did a very able 



REGENERATED MEMBERSHIP. 55 

American Methodist preacher when I heard him 
say in New Jersey that ''wherever there is any 
goodness, there the chmxh is." 

But Baptists are not so much concerned to show 
that it is best to require a profession of faith before 
church membership, as they are to know that this 
is the New Testament order. To show that is no 
trouble. People who hold that Christianity has 
properly developed away from the New Testament 
type of church organization, and who are therefore 
not concerned to find their t3^pe of organization in 
the New Testament, freely testify that we have the 
right idea of the New Testament model. Says a 
high English authority: ''Were the question put 
to a person of plain understanding, unacquainted 
with the controversies w^hich have arisen on the 
subject, what, according to the apostolic epistles is 
a Christian church, or how is it to be defined ? he 
would probably, without hestation or difficulty, 
reply that a Christian church — as it appears, for 
example, in St. Paul's epistles — is a congregation 
or society of faithful men or believers, whose 
unseen faith in Christ is visibly manifested by their 
profession of certain fundamental doctrmes, by the 
preaching of the Word, by the administration and 
reception of the two sacraments, and by the exer- 



56 THE CHURCH. 

cise of discipline. He would direct attention to 
the fact that the ordinary greeting of St. Paul, at 
the beginning of each epistle, is to the saints and 
faithful brethren, constituting the church of such a 
place, fellow heirs with himself of eternal life; and 
that throughout these compositions the members of 
the church are presumed to be in living union with 
Christ, reasonings and exhortations being addressed 
to them, the force of which cannot be supposed to 
be admitted, except by those who are led by the 
Spirit of God; in short, that the members of the 
Corinthian or the Ephesian church are addressed 
as Christians; and a Christian is one who is- in 
saving union vv^ith Christ." He also says: ''Thus 
it appears that what it has become, in some 
quarters, the practice to designate as the dissenting 
view is, in fact, nothing but the teaching of scrip- 
ture, as well as the conclusion of reason." These 
words were wTitten by the Church of England 
Author, Litton. Baptists need look for no better 
testimony that their view of the membership of 
apostolic churches is the scriptural view. I can 
go no farther now with the discussion of the Baptist 
doctrine concerning the church. In the next dis- 
course, I will discuss the officers of a church, as I 
have to-day discussed its membership. 



OFFICERS. 57 



OFFICERS. 

T^HE letter to the Phillipians opens with these 
^ words: ^^Paul and Timotheus, the servants 
of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus 
which are at Philippi, with the bishops and 
deacons." The task set for this hour is to maintain 
that, according to the New Testament, the officers 
of Christian churches are bishops and deacons. 
Two offices there are; and the discussion will be 
brought under two general heads. 

THE BISHOPS. 

That there were bishops in the New Testament 
churches nobody doubts. The matter in question 
is their relation to the churches and their relative 
position among the church officers. There is a 
question of official equality and a question of official 
authority. 

I. Were the bishops officially superior to the 
elders ? That is the question of official equality. 
That there were elders is just as evident as that 
there were bishops. He who runs may read it. 



58 THE CHURCH 

What, now, is the testimony of the New Testament 
upon this question of official equality ? Paul's 
salutation to the Philippians leaves out the elders — 
at least, that is what it seems to do. But the 
omission points to the truth with regard to the 
question of official equality. ''Bishop" and ''elder" 
are two words used to designate the same officer. 
Iv proof of that, I will cite three other passages 
of scripture. In Acts 20: 17, Luke tells us that 
Paul sent from Miletus to Ephesus and called 
"the elders of the church." In the 28th verse of 
the same chapter, Luke records that Paul, address- 
ing those elders of the Ephesian church, said: 
"Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all 
the flock, over which the- Holy Ghost hath made 
you overseers." The word translated "overseers" 
here is the same as that translated "bishops" in the 
salutation to the Philippian church ; so that the same 
men are called "elders" by Luke and "bishops" 
by Paul. In the 3d chapter of ist Timothy, 
Paul gives special instruction as to the qualifica- 
tions of "bishops" and "deacons," but says 
nothing about "elders." We must, of course, 
suppose that the omission of instruction with re- 
gard to "elders" is to be accounted for by their 
being identified with either "bishops" or "dea- 



OFFICERS. 59 

cons." The passage in Acts, already cited, shows 
that they were identified with the ''bishops." In 
the 1st chapter of his letter to Titus, Paul dis- 
tinctly identifies the elders with the bishops when 
he says : ''For this cause left I thee in Crete, 
that thou shouldest set in order the things that are 
wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had 
appointed thee. If any be blameless ^ ^ for 
a bishop must be blameless." 

These passages of Scripture seem to make it 
very plain that the New Testament churches knew 
nothing about bishops as a special class of minis- 
ters oflScially superior to the elders ; or, in other 
words, that they knew nothing of what is now 
known as Episcopacy. That is the way it looks to 
us. But we are Baptists, and do not believe in 
Episcopacy. May we not be looking at these 
Scriptures with prejudiced eyes? In answ^er to 
that question I will quote what is said by some of 
the best scholars who do believe in Episcopac}^ 
Litton says : "Every attempt to establish a dis- 
tinction between the presbyter [elder] and the 
episcopus [bishop] of Scripture wall prove fruit- 
less ; so abundant is the evidence which proves 
that they were but different appellations of the same 
official person." Dr. Jacob says that elders and 



6o THE CHURCH 

deacons ^'were established in the churches by the 
apostles themselves ; while the episcopate, in the 
modern acceptation of the term, and as a distinct 
clerical order, does not appear in the New Testa- 
ment, but was gradually introduced and extended 
throughout the church at a later period." Dr. 
Lightfoot one of the most learned and most trust- 
worthy of the many able Church of England 
commentators on the New Testament, says : ^'It 
is a fact now generally recognized by theolo- 
gians of all shades of opinion that in the lan- 
guage of the New Testament the same officer in 
the church is called indifferently bishop and elder." 
These Episcopal scholars are obliged, in all 
scholarly candor, to see and admit that the New 
Testament contains no Episcopacy, and that the 
Episcopal form of church government is a later 
development. Our interpretation of the scriptures 
at this point is thus sustained by Episcopal scholars 
themselves, and therefore, cannot be charged with 
being a Baptist interpretation ; and so it is seen 
that bishops are not officially superior to elders, 
but are identical with them. 

2. The question of official equality being dis- 
posed of, that of official authority comes up. 
What position did the bishops or elders hold in the 



OFFICERS. 6l 

New Testament churches ? Were they merely 
teachers, or merely rulers, or were they both 
teachers and rulers ? The name ^^episcopus," 
bishop, meaning ^'overseer," indicates that the 
office was not simply one of teaching, but involved 
some duty of administration, superintendence, 
government. Giving instructions as to the quali- 
fications proper for a bishop, Paul says that he 
must ^^rule his own house well, having his chil- 
dren in subjection with all gravity — for if a man 
know not how to rule his own house, how shall he 
take care of the church of God ? Language such 
as that surely indicates that the elder's office is 
more than a teaching office. There is the same 
indication in the language of the apostle when he 
says, ''Let the elders that rule well be counted 
worthy of double honor." Much more could be 
said to show that the elder was not merely a 
teacher. Was he, then, merely a ruler ? By no 
means ; else Paul would not have said that he 
must be ''apt to teach," nor that he must hold fast 
"the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he 
may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and 
to convince the gainsayers." The office involved 
both teaching and government. Baptist churches 
reproduce the New Testament elders in their 



62 THE CHURCH 

pastors. The word ' 'pastor" most admirably 
meets the case. It means ''shepherd ;" and, as a 
shepherd feeds and directs and defends his flock, 
so the Christian pastor, according to the Scriptural 
conception of elders, is to feed, direct, and defend 
his church. In his address to the Ephesian elders, 
Paul brings out exactly this idea of their office as 
that of pastors, or shepherd. He says : Take 
heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the 
flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you 
overseers to shepherd the church of God. Peter 
does the same thing when he charges the elders to 
"shepherd the flock of God." The Baptist pastor, 
then, is a New Testament elder, or bishop, with 
both the teaching and ruling function of that 
officer. 

A thorough discussion of pastoral authority 
would take me too far for my present purpose. 
An indication of what would be said, if I had 
time, may be given. It would have to be said that 
there is here nothing of the arbitrary. Peter enjoins 
upon the elders not to conduct themselves as "lords 
over God's heritage." AndyetinHeb. 13: 17, the 
people addressed are told to "obey them that have 
the rule over you, and submit yourselves," where 
the reference is evidently to the elders. The elders, 



OFFICERS. 63 

then, must not be arbitrary, autocratic, domineer- 
ing; and, at the same time, the churches must be 
obedient. Put alongside of that the two facts that 
the New Testament lodges in the churches the 
powder to elect their pastors, and gives pastors no 
power to enforce authority. Now there emerges 
this conception of the pastor's position: Ideally^ his 
authority is absolute, and ought to command 
implicit obedience — he is the under-shepherd, and, 
in that position, represents Christ, the Great Shep- 
herd and Bishop of our souls; but really his 
authority is limited by his personal deserts, by his 
approach to Christ in wisdom and goodness; and 
obedience must be won through the confidence of 
the church in his wisdom and goodness. Since 
the pastor's position is ideally so high, or, in other 
words, since any particular pastor is in an office to 
which the scriptures have attached authority so 
great, and since the scriptures have lodged in each 
church the power to fill that office with a man of its 
own choice, the church ought to be disposed to 
follow his leadership most heartily. It may learn 
that it cannot wisely follow; but it ought to be dis- 
posed to do so, for the sake of the office he fills, 
and when it learns that it cannot wiselv follow, the 
scriptural remedy is at hand. Since the pastor's 



64 THE CHURCH 

authority is really limited by his wisdom and good- 
ness, and obedience must be won through the con- 
fidence of the church, he ought to strive to be 
worthy of the confidence of his brethren. 

Before we pass from the consideration of the 
eldership, the plurality of elders must receive atten- 
tion. It is true, beyond question, that the apostolic 
churches generally had more than one elder each. 
Out of this fact two questions may arise: i. Was 
the plurality of elders a perpetual regulation, so 
that our churches must have more than one elder 
apiece or be out of harmony with the New Testa- 
ment model ? 2. Were there two distinct classes 
among the elders, the one a teaching and the 
other a ruling class ? With regard to the first of 
these questions, it is enough to say that, if our 
Lord had intended that his churches should always 
have more than one elder apiece, he would have 
given instructions as to how many more. That 
there were more in the apostolic church was 
surely no arbitrary regulation which would be met 
by just a7iy number more than one. There must 
have been some reason for the regulation. In the 
absence of any authoritative declaration, we are 
left free to suppose that the reason was found in the 
necessities of the times. That being the case, 



OFFICERS. 65 

we have one elder in a church or more as there 
is need. 

As to the question of ruling elders constituting 
an official class distinct from preaching elders, it 
may be said that this 'distinction is an invention of 
John Calvin in the sixteenth century, and there is 
only one pa^^sage of scripture that gives even the 
semblance of a ground for distinction. That 
passage is i Tim. 5, 17: *'Let the elders that rule 
well be counted worthy of double honor, especially 
they who labor in the word and doctrine." It ought 
to be said, in the first place, that it is not wise to 
base a doctrine or an important ecclesiastical regu- 
lation upon a single passage of scripture, unless 
the meaning of that passage is clear and unmis- 
takable. This thoroughly sound and generally 
accepted principle forbids that a class of ' 'ruling 
elders" should stand on this passage of scripture, 
for the meaning of the passage is not clear and un- 
mistakable. In the second place, it must be said 
that the preponderance of probability is convinc- 
ingly against the meaning of the passage that sup- 
ports the bench of ruling elders. That interpretation 
requires pecuniary support to be given to the ruling 
elders (for that is the meaning of ' 'double honor"), 
whereas there is nowhere else in the New Testa- 



66 THE CHURCH 

ment provision for pecuniary support to any but 
preaching elders ; it requires us to attach no im- 
portance to the fact that while Paul carefully lays 
down qualifications for deacons and preaching 
elders, or bishops, he nowhere saj^s what should 
be the qualifications of ruling elders; it requires us 
to ignore the fact that immediately after the apos- 
tolic times the churches had no such office, that, 
while they had every other office and ordinance 
appointed by the apostles, and in the course of 
time introduced many that were not so appointed, 
they did not have the office of ''ruling elder." 
These considerations force us to a different inter- 
pretation of the passage — an interpretation which 
makes the distinction marked by the word ''espe- 
cially" a personal instead of an official one. The 
distinction is not between different classes of per- 
sons, but between different persons of the same 
class. • "The elders that rule well" constitute the 
general class that are worthy of ample support; and 
those of that class who not only "rule well," that is, 
show themselves very efficient in the oversight of 
the church, but also "labor in the word and doc- 
trine," that is, give themselves to the yet higher 
task of preaching, are especially w^orthy of ample 
support. This interpretation is in keeping with 



OFFICERS. 67 

the evident use of the word ^'especially" as else- 
where used in the scriptures; for example, right 
here in the 8th verse of this same 5th chapter of 
1st Timothy, where we read: ''If any provide not 
for his own, and especially for those of his own 
house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than 
an infidel." It is readily seen that "his own" des- 
ignates the general class of one's relatives, and 
''those of his ow^n house," introduced by "spe- 
cially," does not designate a new class, but only 
particularizes certain persons included in the 
general class distinguished as "his own." So it 
is in the case of the elders. Those that "rule 
well" are the general class spoken of as worthy of 
ample support, and certain persons in that general 
class are particularized because they preach as well 
as rule efficiently. 

It may be worth while to say that the interpreta- 
tion which I have given to this passage cannot be 
called a ^<^//^j^ interpretation. I will give you the 
words of two distinguished Presbyterian authors. 
One of them says: "It cannot, I think, be cer- 
tainly concluded from this passage, that the ruling 
elders who did not teach or preach were regarded 
as a separate class or order of permanent officers 
in the church. There seems to have been a bench 



68 THE CHURCH 

of elders selected on account of age, piety, pru- 
dence and wisdom, to whom was entrusted the 
whole business of the instruction and government 
of the church, and they performed the various 
parts of the duty as they had ability." The other 
author says: *'Some keen advocate for presby- 
tery, as the word is now understood, on the model 
of John Calvin, have imagined they discovered 
this distinction in the words of Paul to Timothy. 
Here, say they, is a two-fold partition of the 
officers comprised under the same name, into those 
who rule and those who labor in the word and 
doctrine, that is, into ruling elders and teaching 
elders. To this it is replied, on the other side, 
that the especially is not intended to indicate a 
different office, but to distinguish from others those 
who assiduously apply themselves to the most 
important as well as the most difficult part of 
their office, public teaching; that the distinction 
intended is, therefore, not official but personal; 
that it does not relate to a difference in the power 
conferred, but solely to a difference in their 
application. And to this exposition, as by far the 
most natural, I entirely agree," 



OFFICERS. 69 



THE DEACONS. 



Let it be said broadly, that the duties of deacons 
are secular. Deacons are, by virtue of office, in 
no sense preachers. In the 6th chapter of Acts 
we have an account of the appointment of seven 
men who were to help the apostles by relieving 
them of the w^ork involved in the daily distribution 
of a large common fund. These men w^ere 
appointed, not to preach, but to relieve the 
preachers of a certain secular care. It is not 
certain that the appointment of the seven was the 
appointment of deacons in the technical sense. 
But whether that w^as so or not, the seven formed 
the model, their appointment introduced the idea 
of the deaconate; and the idea w^as that of a class 
of officers who should help the preachers by 
taking charge of the temporalities of the church. 
It is in accordance wath this idea that aptness to 
teach is not put by Paul among the qualifications 
of deacons as it is among those of elders. To 
make the deacon a sort of undeveloped elder, as is 
done by all Episcopal forms of government, is 
certainly without warrant in the scriptures. The 
deacon may preach, if he can; but he preaches, 
not because he is a deacon, but because he is a 
Christian. 



70 THE CHURCH 

Again, deacons are not, by virtue of their 
office, the special disciplinarians of the church. 
They have to do with discipline simply as Chris- 
tians and members of the church, and not as 
deacons. In so far as discipline is the work of 
any officer of the church, it is the duty of the 
pastor. He is to have the oversight of the church 
in all its interests ; and the conduct of its members 
is one of its interests. In matters of discipline as 
in other matters, it is often the duty of the pastor 
to advise the church ; it is also true that the con- 
duct of the scriptural work of the church is 
largely left in his hands ; in order that his own 
judgment may become clear with regard to points 
where his advice is needed, and in order that he 
may make no mistake in his conduct of the affairs 
that are left in his hands, he will often find it 
beneficial to consult wise men in the church. 
The deacons may be the wisest men in the church ; 
if they have been wisely chosen, there will be 
none wiser. The pastor, therefore, may consult 
them with regard to his own w^ork ; but he will 
consult them, not as deacons, but as wise brethren. 
As deacons they have nothing to do with the 
discipline of the church. The same remark 
might be made with regard to the whole spiritual 



OFFICERS. 71 

department of the work of the church as distin- 
guished from the secular. The spiritual function 
belong to the pastoral office. The pastor has a 
duty to perform with regard to the work of the 
deacons, that is to say, their work comes under 
that general oversight which he is bound, as the 
bishop, or overseer, to give to all the interests of 
his charge. But the deacons have no official duty 
with regard to the pastor's work. They have a 
duty, but it is not official — it is the duty which 
devolves upon them as members of the church. 

Let me repeat that the deacon's office is seciila7\ 
The deacon's are to take special charge of the 
temporalities of the church. They are to take in 
hand all the property of the church ; they are to 
create and administer a treasury sufficient to carry 
forward the work of the church ; they are to con- 
sider themselves the financial agents of the church 
in the broadest sense, and are to act in accordance 
with that conception of their office. 

I must not close without saying that, in standing 
for only two offices in their churches. Baptists are 
upon the impregnable rock of holy scripture. 
The highest biblical scholarship of the world will 
accord them that distinction. The best that the 
advocates of other offices can say for them is that 



72 THE CHURCH. 

they have developed out of the two contained in the 
New Testament. We will take the testimony of 
scholarship as to the fact of New Testament 
example, and will discard the development. 

The next discourse will be upon the independency 
of the churches and their separation from the 

State. 



INDEPENDENCY. 73 



INDEPENDENCY. 

T INTRODUCE the discussion of Church Inde- 
^ pendency with two passages of scripture. Our 
Lord, anticipating the time when his churches 
should be established, and knowing that church 
members would sometimes have unpleasant differ- 
ences, gave direction as to the proper management 
of such difficulties. His instruction on that point 
is recorded in Matt. i8: 15-17: ''If thy brother 
shcdl trespass against thee, go and tell him his 
fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear 
thee, thou has gained thy brother. But, if he will 
not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, 
that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word 
may be established. And, if he shall neglect to 
hear them, tell it unto the church; but, if he 
neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as 
an heathen man and a publican." Again, being 
before Pilate, a king and yet a prisoner on trial 
for his life, Jesus said: '^My kingdom is not of 
this w^orld; if my kingdom were of this world, 
then would m}^ servants fight that I should not be 
delivered unto the Jews." John 18: 36. 



74 THE CHURCH. 

Baptists believe that scriptural churches are 
independent of each other and of the State. Upon 
these two features of church independency, I am 
to speak to-day. 

THE CHURCHES INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. 

Speaking generally, we may say that there are 
three forms of church government. These are 
Episcopal, Presbyterial and Independent. The 
highest development of the Episcopal form is found 
in the Roman Catholic Church, with the bishops, 
archbishops, and, at the top, the pope. The 
Protestant Episcopal and Methodist Episcopal come 
in as a good second and third. The purest form 
of the Presbyterial government is found in the 
Presbyterian Church of this country. The Baptists 
are the representatives of Independency pure and 
simple. It is very generally supposed that the 
Congregationalists of this country divide that honor 
with the Baptists. That, how^ever, is a mistake. 
Congregationalism seeks to combine self-govern- 
ment of the churches with what it calls the ^^obliga- 
tion to preserve church communion, '^'^ In its effort to 
realize this '^ church communion," it institutes 
^'organs of fellowship," viz: conferences, conso- 
ciations, councils, and the like. These bodies 



INDEPENDENCY. 75 

decide such questions as whether a certain church 
shall be in fellowship with other congregational 
churches, and whether a certain man shall be 
ordained to the ministry. Baptist churches, on the 
other hand, decide for themselves what churches 
they wdll fellowship; and they set apart for the 
work of the ministry those whom they regard as 
called of God for that work. What would the 
Baptist churches of this section think, if the 
Baptist preachers of the section should meet and 
set apart a man for the ministry, without any 
church action? They simply would not recognize 
any such preacher as a Baptist preacher. But 
Congregationalism ordains men to the ministry in 
that way. When, how^ever, a Baptist church 
wishes to ordain a minister, it decrees that ordina- 
tion — it ordains him. It usually calls in ministers 
from other churches to endorse its action by laying 
on their hands. Before laying on hands, they 
usually examine the man to see whether they are 
willing to endorse his ordination. Their endorse- 
ment is all there is in their taking part in the public 
ceremony of laying on hands. The essential 
thing is the action of the church designating the 
man as an elder, an action which the church 
chooses not to regard as completed until other 



76 THE CHURCH. 

elders have endorsed the candidate. A comparison 
of Congregationalism with the pure independency 
of Baptists will show that the Congregationalists 
have a form of government that mixes just a little 
of the Presbyterial with the Independent. While 
Congregationalism thus combines these two forms, 
Lutheranism, not disposed to be particular as to 
the form of its government, has honored all three 
of the formSj giving Episcopacy pre-eminence in 
one place, the Presbyterial form the pre-eminence 
in another, and having some regard to Indepen- 
dency in another, but generally leaning to the 
Presbyterial. 

What, now, is the evidence that the apostolic 
churches were independent of each other? Time 
would not allow me to give all. I must go to the 
heart of the matter. Our Lord's words, already 
quoted from Matthew, touches the case. Final 
action in the sphere of church discipline is there, 
by anticipation, lodged with the local church. 
When the church has taken action, the matter is 
ended. There is no instruction to take the case to 
a higher court. Now, we find this anticipatory in- 
struction of our Lord followed by Paul in giving 
directions to the local churches whom he was called 
to instruct. Take, for example, what he says in 



INDEPENDENCY. 77 

the 5th chapter of ist Corinthians. There was in 
the church at Corinth a man who had committed 
an infamous offense against purity. With regard 
to this man Paul wrote : ''I verily, as absent in 
body, but present in spirit, have judged already, 
as though I were present, concerning him that 
hath so done this deed, in the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and 
my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, to deliver such a one unto satan for the 
destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be 
saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." To whom 
did Paul address these words ? To the bishop of 
the diocese of Corinth ? No. To the session of 
the church at Corinth ? No. To whom, then, 
did he address the words ? ^^Unto the Church of 
God which is at Corinth." He was addressing 
the church at Corinth w^ith regard to what ought to 
be done with one of the members of that church 
— he was addressing the whole church. He 
judged that a certain man ought to be excluded 
from the church. That judgment he communicated 
to the churchy and if the church acted upon his 
judgment, that action was to be taken in a confer- 
ence of the church — it was to be when the church 
was ' 'gathered together. " The act of exclusion was 



78 THE CHURCH. 

to be the work, not of a bishop, not of a bench of 
elders, but of the assembled church. Not even 
the apostle himself could exclude that man from 
the church at Cornith. He would only give his 
judgment as to what the church ought to do. 
With that expression of the clearest and most 
positive conviction, he would leave the church to 
act for itself. In the 2d chapter of the 2d letter, 
Paul recurs to his case of discipline. His advice 
given in the ist letter had resulted in the 
exclusion of the offender. The exclusion had a 
happy effect in the repentance of the one excluded. 
Now he counsels the restoration of the penitent 
offender. He says: ' 'Sufficient to such a man is 
this punishment, which was inflicted of many; so 
that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, 
lest perhaps such a one shall be swallowed up with 
overmuch sorrow. Wherefore, I beseech you that 
ye would confirm your love toward him.'' Here 
again he is addressing the churchy and not any 
individual man, nor any official order. He refers, 
too, to the exclusion as having been effected by 
the majority — 'inflicted of many," he says, that is, 
'Hhe more part" of them, the majority. ''Not by 
an individual priest, as in the Romish church, nor 
by the bishops, and the clergy alone, but by the 



INDEPENDENCY. 79 

whole body of the church." Exclusion and 
restoration of members, then, according to Paul's 
teaching, was to be effected by the church. Of 
course, this carries along with it the right to re- 
ceive members in the first instance. If all matters 
of receiving and excluding members were in the 
hands of the churches, and their action was final, 
it would hardly seem necessary to prove that they 
had full control of all their own business affairs. 
That, however, could be proved, if it were 
necessary. It could also b^ shown that the 
churches selected their officers. The seven were 
not selected by the apostles, but by the ''multitude 
of the disciples." When it is said, Acts 14: 23, 
Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in the churches 
they visited, the meaning is not that they selected 
the men who were put in that office, but as Barnes, 
Presbyterian authority, Alford, Episcopal authority, 
and Meyer, Lutheran authority, agree in holding, 
that they ordained the presbyters whom the 
churches selected — that they appointed them in the 
usual way of appointing officers, by the suffrages 
of the people. If a church is authorized by 
scripture to receive and exclude members and to 
ordain preachers, as well as to manage all of its 
own business affairs, it would seem that it is 



8o THE CHURCH. 

authorized to be independent of all other churches 
in its government. To be sure, it is not independ- 
ent of its Lord and Lawgiver. It has no right to 
annul any of his laws. It is subject to him as its 
absolute sovereign. Nor is it independent of other 
churches in the sense that they have no rights 
which it is bound to respect. No one church has 
a monopoly of independence. Each must respect 
the rights of every other: but at the same time, 
and all the time, it can resist any attempt of any 
other church or combination of churches to inter- 
fere with its self-government. Pope, priest, pres- 
bytery, cofisistory, consociation, association — none 
have any right of government. Baptist associa- 
tions and conventions are only deliberative bodies 
of Christians, who have a common end in view 
and are striving together to that end. If one of 
these bodies should celebrate the Lord's Supper, 
ordain a preacher, or attempt to make a law for 
the crovernment of the churches, it would be con- 
demned and repudiated by the churches imme- 
diately. 

Are Baptists correct in their view of the apostolic 
model as providing for independency ? The 
church historian Mosheim, who did not especially 
love Baptists, says of the churches of the first 



INDEPENDENCY. 8l 

century that they were entirely independent, none 
of them being subject to any foreign jurisdiction, 
but each governed by its own laws." Archbishop 
Whately says of the apostolic churches, that they 
were each a distinct, independent community on 
earth, united by common principles on which they 
were founded, and by their mutual agreement, 
afiFection and respect, but not having any one 
recognized head on earth, or acknowledging any 
sovereignty of one of those societies over others." 
Here, now, is the testimony of a Lutheran church 
historian and that of an archbishop of the Church 
of England. If the testimony of an infidel secular 
historian were wanted, we have that in the words 
of Gibbon, where he says of the societies in the 
cities of the Romish Empire, that they ''were 
united only by the ties of faith and charity," and 
that, for more than a hundred years after the 
apostles, each society ''formed within itself a 
separate and independent republic." Mosheim, 
Whately and Gibbon certainly were not interested 
to find the Baptist church model in the apostolic 
order, but that is what they found. 

THE CHURCHES INDEPENDENT OF THE STATE. 

Upon the second phase of Independency, I 
must be very brief . Said Jesus: "My kingdom 



82 THE CHURCH. 

is not of this world ; if my kingdom were of this 
world, then would my servants fight." Baptists 
hold that there ought to be a absolute separation of 
Church and State ; that the State ought to be 
neither patron nor ruler in matters of religion ; 
that, in religion, people ought to be perfectly free, 
so long as their religion does not involve im- 
morality, or injustice to other people ; that, since 
people are to be free in religion and not subjected 
to compulsion, they are not to be allowed State 
support for their religion, since to support one 
man in his religion would be placing a sort of 
compulsion on another. 

To many people in this favored republic of ours, 
it may seem no strange thing that Baptists should 
believe in the separation of Church and State. 
They may think that doctrine is no new thing un- 
der the sun. But Episcopacy is established by law 
in England, Presbyterianism in Scotland, Luther- 
anism in Germany, and other forms of religion in 
other countries. 

There are two facts I wish to state before I 
close. The first of these is that Baptists have 
always stood for soul-liberty, for absolute separa- 
tion of Church and State. Nowhere in their 
history can you find any faltering on their part 



INDEPENDENCY. 83 

with regard to this vital question. The other fact 
is that Baptists have often been alone in standing 
for separation of Church and State. It was in the 
time of the great Protestant reformation. What 
strange imperfection there was in that reformation ! 
I have before referred to that imperfection. Here 
w^e see it again. The reformers defied the church 
as a body of regenerate persons, and yet were 
wilhng that the church should become a national 
institution, which men w^ould be forced to join and 
taxed to support. All the creeds framed by those 
great men give to the civil magistrate power to 
force men in matters of religion. What did Luther 
say about false teachers? ^'I am very averse," 
said he, ''to the shedding of blood; 'tis sufficient 
that they should be banished." He also said that 
they may be ''corrected and forced at least to 
silence, put under restraint as madmen." With 
regard to the Jews, he said, that "their syna- 
gogues should be leveled w^ith the ground, their 
houses burned and their books, even to the Old 
Testament, taken from them." Anabaptists 
were put to death by the Lutherans "for propa- 
gating their errors," so ran the charge, "contrary 
to the judgment of the Landgrave of Hcsse-CasselT 
And what about ' Calvin ? With regard to the 



84 THE CHURCH. 

heretic Servetus, who had written to ask protection 
to visit Geneva, he wrote to another: *'If ever he 
enters the city, he shall not leave it living, if I can 
prevent it." He said also: ''It was by my prose- 
cution he was imprisoned;" and he expressed the 
hope that Servetus would be condemned to death, 
''though not to the terrible one of being burned." 
Other great men, associates of Calvin, approved 
the death of Servetus, saying that to try to destroy 
his dreams by a train of reasoning would be only 
to grow mad with a madman. Here, then, were 
the two best known of all the great reformers — 
Luther, the father of Lutheranism, and Calvin, the 
father of Presbyterianism — here w^ere these two 
great reformers advocating in person what all 
the creeds of the i6th century maintained, viz., 
that the civil magistrate has the right to support 
religion and punish heresy. If we pass over into 
England, we find the same state of things there as 
on the Continent at that period. "Henry VIII 
burned Catholics and Baptists to prove himself 
defender of the faith. Elizabeth relighted the fires 
of Smithfield, like her father, to burn Catholics 
and Baptists." In 1638, the General Assembly of 
the Presbyterian Church, in Scotland, with regard 
to religious controversies, forbade "all printers in 



INDEPENDENCY. 85 

the kingdom from printing or reprinting any con- 
fession of faith, or protestation, or reason pro or 
contra^ without warrant subscribed by the clerk to 
the Assembly.'' 

In 1642, Roman Catholics were ordered to 
renounce their '^obstinacy" under penalty of 
banishment or imprisonment. John Robinson, the 
celebrated Puritan mmister, the father of the 
Pilgrims, though he and his religious associates 
were exiles from England from t6o8 till his death 
in 1625, wrote earnestly in defence of the right of 
magistrates to persecute error, and promote what 
they think to be true religion by the power of the 
State. Passing strange it was that even the 
father of the Pilgrims should write that the magis- 
trate ought ''to punish, civilly, religious actions,'' 
and that ''by compulsion" he is to "repress public 
and notable idolatry, as also to provide that the truth 
of God in his ordinance be taught and published, and 
by some penalty provoke his subjects universally 
unto hearing for their instruction and conversion; 
yea, to inflict the same upon them, if^ after due teach^ 
ing^ they offer not themselves unto the church, " When 
Episcopalians and Presbyterians, and even the 
Puritan Independents were thus holding to the 
union of Church and State, there came a voice 



86 THE CHURCH. 

from the Baptist camp. It was a voice crying in 
the wilderness. It declared that ''the magistrate 
is not to meddle with religion, or matters of con- 
science, nor compel men to this or that form of 
religion, because Christ is the king and law-giver 
of the church and conscience." Strange words 
were those in that time. Brave, true words they 
were. They were put forth in a Confession of 
Faith by the Baptists of London in 1611, by men 
who had been in exile on account of their prin- 
ciples, but who had returned home, ''determined 
to challenge king and State to their faces, and not 
give way to them; no, not a foot." 

In this country history has repeated itself. To 
the Baptists belong the honor of contending for 
separation of Church and State when they stood 
alone. In New England, Congregationalism be- 
came the State religion. Roger Williams, a Puri- 
tan preacher, persecuted in Massachusetts colonj^ 
by his Puritan brethren for preaching Baptist 
doctrines, fled into the wilderness, and established 
the colony of Rhode Island. He put the principle 
of separation between Church and State into the 
foundation of the government of that colony. In 
1638, the government was formally instituted by a 
solemn covenant of all to "submit to the orders of 



INDEPENDENCY. 87 

the major part in civil things only,''' Thus did the 
father of American Baptists become the first 
legislator who ever put a denial of religious juris- 
diction into the foundation of civil government. 
In Virginia, as in other colonies. Episcopacy was 
established by law. In 1775, the whole denomina- 
tion of Baptists in Virginia united in a struggle to 
overthrow the establishment. This effort finally 
succeeded, not only in banishing that establish- 
ment from Virginia, but also in making it a part of 
the fundamental law of this country that there shall 
be no establishment of religion by law. In the 
progress of the struggle, however, a bill was intro- 
duced in the legislature of Virginia, providing for 
the taxation of the people for the support of re- 
ligion, the tax collected to be distributed among 
the different denominations. All tlie denomina- 
tions, except the Baptists, advocated and peti- 
tioned for this arrangement. The Baptists re- 
monstrated with all their might. Papers pro- 
testing against the bill were circulated by them 
every w^here for signatures. ^'When the Assembly 
met, the table of the House of Delegates almost 
sunk under the weight of the accumulated copies 
of the memorial sent forward from the different 
counties, each with its long and dense column 



88 THE CHURCH. 

of subscribers. The fate of assessment was 
sealed." 

The record of the Baptists in connection with 
this doctrine of separation between Church and 
State is a glorious record. I wish I could turn 
all its shining pages before you this morning. I 
cannot. I must close this discourse, and here rest 
the discussion of the Baptist doctrine concerning 
the Church. I will next take up the Baptist doc- 
trine concerning the Ordinances, and will first dis- 
cuss the ordinance of baptism. 



THE BAPTIST POSITION AS TO THE 
ORDINANCES. 



1. BAPTISM. 

2. THE SUPPER, 



90 BAPTISM. 



THE ACT OF BAPTISM. 

WE have now reached the consideration of the 
Baptist doctrine concerning the ordinances. 
It is hardly necessary to say that Baptists believe 
that there are two, and only two, Christian ordi- 
nances. These are baptism and the Lord's supper. 
I shall not go further, just now, with the general 
statement of the doctrine, but will extend it as I 
proceed with the discussion. 

BAPTISM. 

The ordinance of baptism claims the first place 
in our attention. There are four separate phases 
of this subject which I wish to treat, and I must 
give an entire discourse to each phase. 

THE ACT OF BAPTISM. 

To-day let us consider the act of baptism. The 
question involved is whether ijitmersioji alone is the 
baptism of the New Testament. Baptists insist, 
and persist, if you please, in insisting, that there is 
no Christian baptism without immersion. They 



THE ACT. 91 

contend that no other use of water, no matter when, 
upon whom, or by whom applied, is Christian 
baptism. People may be Christians, they gladly 
admit, who have not been immersed; but Baptists 
deny that such people have been baptized, however 
good and noble and true and Christlike they 
may be. In support of this position, we appeal to 
the New Testament, from which all Christian 
institutions are derived. I desire this morning to 
make the appeal in three parts. 

THE WORD '' BAPTIZEIN." 

In the first place, the word which describes the 
act of baptism and in which the command to 
baptize is given, must be considered, and allowed 
to yield its testimony. That is certainly starting at 
the right point. The word, as you know, is 
'^ baptizein." Our version of the scripture does 
not translate the word, but only transliterates, or 
anglicizes it. It was left untranslated, because 
something besides immersion had come to be 
practiced for baptism, before the version was 
made, and the translators wished to give all parties 
the privilege of translating this word for themselves. 

What, now, is the meaning of this word ^'bap- 
tizein?" How are we to find out? How do we 



92 BAPTISM. 

find out the meaning of any word in any lan- 
guage? We commonly go to the dictionary. If 
you wish to learn the meaning of an English word 
you do not know, you go at once to Webster's or 
Worcester's dictionary, if you have one. Why do 
we go to dictionaries to learn the meaning of 
words? Because the dictionaries record what the 
sense, or senses, in which any given word is used 
in the language which they represent. The dic- 
tionaries do not create or fix the meaning of words, 
but only record what the meanings really are, as 
the words are used in speech and literature. We 
cannot now go all through Greek literature to 
discover the meaning of baptizein. The thing for 
us to do is to go to the dictionaries. But let it be 
born in mind that we are not to go to any Baptist 
dictionary. The appeal wall be to the very best; 
but, I assure you, not one of them, is by a Baptist 
author. Nobody reads Greek without owning a 
copy of Liddell & Scott's lexicon. This is, far 
and away, the best classical Greek lexicon we 
have. This lexicon says that baptizein means ^^to 
dip in or under water." It gives secondary and 
figurative uses of the word, but all of these grow 
right out of the idea of dipping, of immersion, of 
being wholly covered up; for example, a man is 



THE ACT. 93 

overwhelmed in debt, or he is flooded with 
questions. There is not the remotest suggestion of 
anything like sprinkling. 

Again, nobody reads the New Testament in 
Greek without owning, if he can, a copy of Grimm's 
Wilki's Clavis, written in Latin, or the same as 
revised and translated by Prof. Thayer. This 
dictionary says that baptizein means ^'to immerse 
repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge.'' It also 
says that this word is used in the New Testament 
''particularly of the appointed rite of sacred wash- 
ing, first instituted by John the Baptist, afterwards 
by Christ's command received by Christians and 
adjusted to the nature and contents of their religion, 
that is, an immersion in water, performed for this 
end, viz., that it might be a sign of vice and wick- 
edness washed away, and submitted to by those 
who, led by a desire for salvation, wished to be 
admitted to the benefits of the Messiah's reign." 
There is not one word about sprinkling in this defi- 
nition as found in the very best dictionary of New 
Testament Greek. 

It is not necessary that I should go further with 
the dictionaries. Those I have quoted are the 
best; they are not by Baptist authors; and the tes- 
timony of the others agree with these. Search the 



94 BAPTISM. 

libraries of the world over, and you cannot find a 
dictionary, recognized among Greek scholars as a 
standard, that gives sprinkling or pouring as a 
meaning of baptizein. But baptizein^ with its derivi- 
tives, is the word that the New Testament uses to 
designate this ordinance of baptism. We are, 
therefore, permitted to hold that when our Lord 
says: ''Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of 
the Son and of the Holy Spirit." He commands us 
to immerse^ and not to sprinkle ; that sprinkling is 
not baptizing; and that those who have not been 
immersed have not been baptized. In like manner, 
we are permitted to hold that when Peter said: 
"Repent and be baptized," he meant repent and 
be immersed^ and not repent and be sprinkled. If 
it is possible to find out the meaning of any word 
in any language, then baptizein means to immerse^ 
and not to sprinkle. Prof. Moses Stuart, one of 
the foremost scholars this country has produced, 
said of this word that it means ''to dip, to plunge, 
to immerse into anj/thing liquid. All lexico- 
graphers and critics of any note are agreed in 
this." 



THE ACT. 95 

NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLES OF BAPTISM. 

In the next place, we must consider the circum- 
stances connected with the administration of this 
ordinance, as those circumstances are recorded in 
the New Testament. It does seem as if it would 
be difficult to suppose that the baptisms of the New 
Testament record were administered by sprmkling. 
That supposition surely can be made only by those 
who are already committed to sprinkling. 

Those who went to John, we read in the sacred 
record, were baptized of him ''in the river of 
Jordan." Why in the river ? Was it necessary 
to be in the river to be sprinkled ? Does not that 
position in the river naturally suggest immersion ? 

Again, we read that John w^as ''baptizing in 
Enon near to Salim, because there was much water 
there." Why because there was much w^ater ? 
Would it take much w^ater to sprinkle people ? Is 
not the natural supposition the one that accords 
wath the meaning of the word " baptize," viz: that 
the people were immersed ? 

Of the baptism of Jesus it is said that, when he 
was baptized, he "went up straightway out of the 
water." Why did he find it necessary to go up 
out of the zvaterf Because he was in the water. 
But why was he in the water ? Because he had 



g6 BAPTISM. 

gone into it to be baptized. But is it natural that 
he went into the water to be sprinkled? Is it not 
far more natural to suppose that he went in the 
water to be ijnmersed, as the word ^'baptize" points 
out? 

Let us take one more case. It is Philip's baptism 
of Candace's treasurer : ''He commanded the 
chariot to stand still ; and they went down both 
into the water both Philip and the Eunuch ; and 
he baptized him. And when they were come up 
out^ of the water, the spirit of the Lord caught 
away Philip." Put before an intelligent child, un- 
influenced by his elders, this account of baptism, 
and ask him whether the Eunuch was sprinkled or 
immersed. I believe he would say there was no 
need to go down into the water unless there was to 
be an immersion. This ofRcer almost certainly 
had a drinking vessel in his chariot. It would 
have been enough to drive to the edo*e of the water 
and dip up a little, if there was to be only a sprink- 
ling. But the record says that they went down 
into the water and came up out of the water. It 
would certainly take a great deal of ingenuity to 
explain the account on the supposition that the 
Eunuch was sprinkled. 

Bishop Ellicott is one of the highest authorities 



THE ACT. 97 

in the English Church, and he says : ^'The 
Eunuch would lay aside his garments, descend 
chest deep into the water, and be plunged under it 
^in the name of the Lord Jesus.' " 

THE ILLUSTRATIVE USE OF BAPTISM IN THE NEW 

TESTAMENT. 

In the third place, we must give some atten- 
tion to the illustrative use of baptism in the New 
Testament writings. It is not strange tliat an or- 
dinance holding the place baptism does in the 
Christian system should be used to illustrate and 
enforce the teachings and exhortations of the 
apostles. This illustrative use of the ordinance 
carries along with it a very clear indication of 
what baptism was, as we shall see. 

Take the passage Rom. 6: 3,4: ''Know ye 
not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
Christ w^ere baptized into his death? Therefore, 
we are buried with him by baptism into death; 
that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by 
the glory of the Father, even so we also should 
walk in newness of life." Paul is talking about 
the incongruity between the Christian life and a 
life in sin. He illustrates this by reference to 
baptism. Those whom he was addressing had 



98 BAPTISM. 

been baptized. Now, he says their baptism set 
forth in symbol the fact confessed, that they had 
died to sin. As a dead man is buried, so they, 
dead to sin, had been buried by baptism. Further- 
more, in being thus buried by baptism they had 
submitted to something that bore a resemblance to 
the burial of Christ; and as he rose from his 
burial in the tomb to a life different from that which 
he had previously lived among men — different 
in the sense that, before his death life 
had been a terrestrial one, while it was, 
after his resurrection, to be a celestial one, 
so their emergence from the baptismal waters, 
their resurrection from the baptismal tomb, 
was to be a rising to a new walk in life. If, now, 
the baptism that had become established at the 
time Paul wrote to the Romans was not an immer- 
sion^ how could there be any force in the language 
which he here uses ? If you wish to see how 
utterly inappropriate and meaningless it would be 
on the supposition that the baptism then established 
was sprinklings you may see by just substituting 
the word ^'sprinkle" for '^baptize" in the passage 
I have quoted. Let us try it right now, ^'Know 
ye not that so many of us as were sprinkled into 
Jesus Christ, were sprinkled into his death. 



THE ACT. 99 

Therefore we are buried with him by sprinkling 
into death, that hke as Christ was raised up from 
the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we 
also should walk in newness of life." How can 
one be buried by sprinkling ? Arid where is there 
anything in a case of sprinkling that corresponds to 
the resurrection of Christ, as demanded by this 
illustrative argument of Paul ? But now let us try 
the substitution of ''immerse" for ''baptize." 
"Know ye not that so many of us as were 
immersed into Jesus Christ, were immersed 
into his death ? Therefore w^e are buried with 
him by immersion into death; that like as Christ 
was raised up from the dead by the glory of the 
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of 
life." Neither figure nor argument is impaired in 
the least by the substitution of "immerse;" but 
both are destroyed by the substitution of "sprinkle," 
and the grand apostle's language is reduced to 
nonsense. The same destruction would be accom- 
plished by the substitution of "pour" instead of 
"sprinkle," for "baptize." Paul makes a similar 
illustrative use of baptism in other places, as for 
example, in Col. 2: 12: "Buried with him in bap- 
tism, wherein also ye are risen with him through 
the- faith of the operation of God, who hath raised 



lOO BAPTISM. 

him from the dead," Another example may be 
found in Gal. 3: 27: '^As many of you as have 
been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ," 
where the apostle is speaking of the mystical 
union between believers and their Lord, and repre- 
sents their coming into that union as a ^'putting on 
of Christ" — a ^ ^putting on" such as the clothing of 
oneself with a garment — as the garment clothes 
and covers the body, so Christ clothes and covers 
the soul of the believer; and this inward entering 
into Christ as a covering, was outwardly repre- 
sented by their entering into the baptismal water. 
The use of baptism in both these passages, as well 
as in the one taken from Romans, is based upon 
the fact that baptism was immersion. 

There is a striking passage in Hebrews 10: 22, 
that must be looked at in this connection: *'Let us 
draw near with a true heart in full assurance of 
faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil 
conscience, and our bodies washed with pure 
water." We have sprinkling ;^^zc, and no doubt 
about it ! But it is sprinkling in such a way as to 
show conclusively that sprinkling was not baptism. 
What, according to this passage, is to be 
sprinkled? Is it the body? No. It is the heart. 
Can the heart be literally sprinkled? No. The 



THE ACT. lOI 

sprinkling then must be figurative. Already, in 
the 9th chapter of this letter, the author has 
written these words: ''If the blood of bulls and 
of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the 
unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, 
how much more shall the blood of Christ, who 
through the eternal Spirit offered himself without 
spot to God, purge your conscience from dead 
works to serve the living God." In the 12th 
chapter we find these words: ''To Jesus the 
Mediator of the New Covenant, and to the blood 
of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that 
of Abel." In such a setting, the expression 
"having our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- 
science" is not hard to understand. Beyond all 
question the reference is to forgiveness of sin 
on the ground of the atonement effected by the 
blood of Christ. There is in this passage a 
washing as well as a sprinkling. What is to be 
washed? The body — "our bodies washed with 
pure water." The reference here is to baptism. 
The fact that the body is the thing washed shows 
that the washing is literal^ not figurative as in the 
case of sprinkling the heart, and that the refer- 
ence is to baptism. To what else could it refer? 
Your heart has been sprinkled from an evil con- 



I02 BAPTISM. 

science — that is to say, your sins have been 
forgiven; and now, in addition to that your body 
has been washed in pure water. In such a con- 
nection what does the ^'washing" refer to? In 
such a connection it is a sacred, religious washing, 
beyond all doubt. But the Christian system knows 
no sacred washing but the washing of baptism. 
The reference is, therefore, certainly to baptism. 
But does the ^^washing" mean immersion ? Beyond 
question. This whole imagery is drawn from the 
Levitical law. In that there is no such thing as 
sprinkling with pure water. The sprinklings were 
with blood; or, if with water, the water was mixed 
with something else, as ''the ashes of the burnt 
heifer." The washings, on the other hand, were 
performed by immersing the part to be washed in 
a laver, or font, provide for that purpose. In the 
passage before us the whole body is to be washed 
or immersed. In this passage, therefore, we have 
both sprinkling and immersion, sprinkling being 
used with evident reference to the purification of 
the soul through the forgiveness of sin upon the 
ground of the atoning blood of Christ, and immer- 
sion being used with just as evident reference to 
the ordinance of baptism. 

There are other examples of the illustrative use 



THE ACT. 103 

of baptism in the New Testament writings which the 
advocates of sprinkling build upon, as they do 
upon the passage just explained. But all such 
examples, when examined^ yield their testimony in 
favor of immersion as the baptism established in 
the New Testament churches. 

Let us now review our argument. First, the 
word used in the commands establishing baptism 
means immersion and only immersion. Secondly, 
the recorded cases of the administration of the 
ordinance, when circumstantial details are given, 
can be naturally and easily regarded only as cases 
of immersion^ the supposition that they were cases 
of sprinkling or pouring being unnatural and even 
violent. Thirdly, the instances in which baptism 
is referred to in the apostolic epistles for the purpose 
of illustration and enforcement of truth are such as 
to show that the baptism that was established in the 
New Testament churches was immersion and not 
sprinkling or pouring. The argument is unassail- 
able. If anybody is not thoroughly unwilling to 
be convinced that immersion and immersion alone 
was the baptism of New Testament times he is 
bound to be convinced by this argument. If argu- 
ment will convince him, he must be convinced. 
The trouble with a great many people, however, is 



I04 BAPTISM. 

that they are unwilHng to be convinced on this 
subject. 

I must not fail to give you a few testimonies, of 
the scores and hundreds I might give, from Pedo- 
baptist sources as to the correctness of the Baptist 
doctrine that immersion and immersion alone is the 
baptism of the New Testament. 

Dr. DoUinger, one of the foremost Catholic 
scholars of the centiuy, says of Christian baptism 
that ''it was by immersion of the whole person, 
which is the only meaning of the New Testament 
word." ''A mere pouring or sprinkling," said he, 
''was never thought of." With him all Catholic 
scholars agree. Says one of these : "Not only 
the Catholic Church, but also the pretended re- 
formed churches, have altered the primitive custom 
in giving the sacrament of baptism, and now allow of 
baptism by sprinkling and pouring water upon the 
person baptized ; nay, many of their ministers do 
it now-a-days by filliping a wet finger and thumb 
over a child's head, which is hard enough to call 
a baptizing in any sense." 

Let us now hear from two scholars of the 
English Church. Dean Stanley says : "There 
can be no question that the original form of 
baptism, the ver}^ meaning of the word, was com- 



THE ACT. 105 

plete immersion in the deep baptismal waters." 
Bishop Lightfoot says : *^The sacrament of 
baptism as administered in the apostolic age in- 
volved a two-fold symbolism — a death or burial 
and a resurrection. In the rite in itself these were 
represented by two distinct acts — the disappearance 
beneath the water and the emergence from the 
water." I could go on quoting similar testimonies 
from English churchmen until you would be 
tired out. 

Among Lutheran Biblical scholars none stand 
above Meyer. He says: ^ ^Immersion was a tho- 
roughly essential part of the symbolism of baptism." 
Mosheim says that baptism was administered in the 
apostolic age ''by immersion of the whole body." 
With him agree Kurtz, in his Church History, and 
Guericke, and a host of others. 

John Calvin is considered very good authority 
among Presbyterians, and he says: ''Here we per- 
ceive how baptism was administered among the 
ancients, for they immersed the whole body in 
water. Dr. Philip Schaff is about as well known 
among the Presbyterians of America as Dr. Jno. 
A. Broadus is among the Baptists; and Dr. Schaff, 
in his history of the Apostolic Church, says: "As 
to the outward mode of administration of the ordi- 



I06 BAPTISM. 

nance, immersion and not sprinkling was unques- 
tionably the original normal form." In another 
place, he says: **The baptism of Christ in the 
River Jordan, and the illustrations of baptism used 
in the New Testament, are all in favor of immer- 
sion rather than sprinkling, as is freely admitted by 
the best exegetes. Catholic and Protestant, English 
and German. Nothing can be gained by unnatural 
exegesis. The aggressiveness of the Baptists has 
driven Pedobaptists to the opposite extreme." 

When w^e come to the Methodist side of this 
great Christian famil}^ of ours, we fall upon a 
curious bit of history. John Wesley — every Meth- 
odist knows who he was! John Wesley kept a 
diary. In that diary, under date of February 21st, 
1736, is this record: ''Mary Welsh, aged eleven 
days, was baptized according to the custom of the 
first Church, and the rule of the Church of Eng- 
land, by immersion. The child was ill then, but 
recovered from that very hour." Under date of 
May 5th, 1736, occurs this entry: ''I w^as asked 
to baptize a child of Mr. Parker's, second bailiff of 
Savannah; but Mrs. Parker told me, neither Mr. 
P. nor I will consent to its being dipped! I 
answered, if you certify that your child is weak, it 
will suffice (the rubric says) to pour water upon it. 



THE ACT. 107 

She replied, nay, the child is not weak, but I am 
resolved that it shall not be dipped. This argu- 
ment I could not refute, so I went home, and the 
child was baptized by another person." The 
matter, however, did not end there. On Septem- 
ber 1st, 1737, Mr. Wesley was tried by a jury of 
44 men, found guilty, and ordered to leave the 
country. Of the indictment he says that, '^therein 
they asserted upon oaths, that John Wesley, clerk, 
had broken the laws of the realm, contrary to the 
peace of our sovereign lord the King, his honor 
and dignity." According to his account, there 
were ten charges in the indictment. The 5th of 
these was: ''By refusing to baptize Mr. Parker's 
child, otherwise than by dipping, except the parents 
would certify that it was weak, and not able to 
bear it." The other charges were as trivial as 
that. But just think of John Wesley, the father 
of Methodism, being put on trial before a jury for 
refusing to sprinkle a baby! 

I must bring these testimonies to a close with a 
quotation from an eminent Congregational scholar. 
As to the fact that immersion was the primitive act 
of baptism, he says : ''No matter of church history 
is clearer. The evidence is all one waj^, and all 
church historians of any repute agree in accepting 



I08 BAPTISM. 

it. We cannot claim even originality in teaching 
it in a Congregational Seminary. And we really 
feel guilty of a kind of anachronism in writing an 
article to insist upon it. It is a point on which 
ancient, mediaeval, and modern historians alike. 
Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Calvinist, 
have no controversy. And the simple reason for 
this unanimity is that the statements of the early 
fathers are so clear, and the light shed upon these 
statements from the early customs of the Church 
so conclusive, that no historian who cares for his 
reputation would dare to deny it, and no historian 
who is worthy of the name would wish to." 

In a case of law, if the witnesses for the defence 
testify in favor of the prosecution, the truth about 
the matter is easily learned, and a verdict is 
speedily reached. Surely that principle holds 
good with the question before us as to what was 
the act of baptism in the New Testament dmes. 
The advocates of sprinkling for baptism now testify 
that immersion v/as the baptism of the apostolic age. 

It would be interesting to show how the change 
from immersion to sprinkling was eifected. I shall 
do so in a future discourse. Next Sunday, I wish 
to speak upon The Meaning of Baptism. 



WHAT FOR. 109 



WHAT BAPTISM IS FOR. 

AS I spoke last Sunday upon the Act of Bap- 
tism, so I promised to speak to-day upon the 
signilScance of it. As the question then was : 
What is Baptism ? so now the question is : Why 
should people be Baptized ? what does it mean ? 
what is it for ? what is the use of it ? 

IS BAPTISM ESSENTIAL. 

Let me begin the answer to the question as to 
why people should be baptized, by repeating 
another question that you often hear people asking. 
The question is this : ^'Is baptism essential ?" 
What is meant by that question ? Without some 
explanation of it, no single answer could be 
given. The answer must be : "Yes and No.'' 
Whether the correct answer is "yes" or "no" de- 
pends entirely upon what is meant by the question. 
The question, as commonly put, is incomplete. A 
thing, in order to be essential, must have some 
counterpart — there must be some other thing to 
which it is essential. It is like an adjective in the 



no BAPTISM. 

comparative degree. You can't say one thing is 
^'better" without having in mind some other thing 
than which it is better. There must be a second 
term to the comparison. So it is with the word 
'^essential." There must be a second term — some 
other thing to which the particular thing of which 
you are speaking is essential. Now then, what is 
that other thing in mind when the question is 
asked : ''Is baptism essential ?" If it is salva- 
tion, then the answer is "No." 

BAPTISM IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. 

That is the view held by Baptists; and they 
claim that their view is the Scriptural one. They 
say that the New Testament, beyond all reasona- 
ble doubt, links the promise of salvation to a 
certain spiritual condition, to a certain attitude of 
souL which may be called repentance, or faith, or 
regeneration, or conversion, accordingly as it is 
looked at in one way or another. They hold that 
it is to this spiritual posture, and not to any 
external performance, that the promise of salvation 
is joined. This is done so clearly in the general 
tenor and drift of the New Testament teaching 
and in such a multitude of particular passages, 
that the very few passages in which some saving 



WHAT FOR. Ill 

efficacy seems to be attributed to baptism must be 
interpreted in such a way as to bring them into 
harmony with all the other passages and the 
general tenor of the teaching. We find no trouble 
in so interpreting .them. If these few passages 
stood alone, they might easily convey the idea that 
baptism has some saving value; but standing as 
they do in the clear light that is shed upon them 
from the rest, it is quite out of the question for 
sober interpretation so to understand them. 

While baptism is not essential to salvation^ there 
are some things to which it is essential. Two of 
those I shall now proceed to speak of, and thus 
shall answer the question as to why people should 
be baptized. 

BAPTISM IS ESSENTIAL TO THE MOST IMPRESSIVE 
REPRESENTATION OF THE GREAT CENTRAL 
TRUTHS OF OUR RELIGION. 

That is one meaning of it. That is one reason 
why people should be baptized. Of course, it 
must be understood that in speaking of baptism, in 
this connection, and in all this discourse, I mean 
immersion. We saw, last Sunday, that only 
immersion is the scriptural baptism; and we are 
standing on scriptural ground, and looking at this 



112 BAPTISM. 

whole subject from the scriptural standpoint. Bap- 
tism as thus understood, I say, is essential to the 
most impressive representation of the great central 
truths of our religion; and that is one reason why 
we should be baptized. 

What are the great central truths of our religion ? 
Let us see. That in our natural condition we are 
lost sinners; that Christ Jesus is the Saviour of 
sinners, and as such died, was buried, rose again, 
and ascended to heaven ; that those who are saved 
by him undergo a spiritual change which involves 
a death to sin and a newness of life; that those who 
pass through this change are so united to Christ 
that because he lives they shall live also, and as he 
rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, so 
they will rise from the dead and ascend to heaven. 
Is not that tlie Creed of Christendom ? Is there 
one article in it to which any who calls Jesus 
^^Lord," would object ? I think not. Nor do I 
think any intelligent evangelical Christian would 
hesitate to say that the truths I have named are the 
great central ones. 

Now, what is the most adequate and the most 
impressive representation of those truths ? Need 
I say anything upon the great and recognized 
value of ^'object lessons?" All successful teachers 



WHAT FOR. 113 

avail themselves of this appeal to the eye, and this 
use of the concrete. What would your boy or 
girl learn about arithmetic or algebra without 
'^examples?" Let the principles, the abstract 
truths, be stated ever so clearly and fully, it is 
precious little the pupil would learn, if that state- 
ment were all he had to learn from. The presenta- 
tion of the subject would be regarded as very im- 
perfect and very lacking in impressiveness. The 
^'examples" would be essential to the most 
impressive presentation of the abstract principles 
involved. You might describe a horse to a man 
who had never seen one, and you might make 
your description very minute and very accurate; 
and yet what a dim and poor conception he would 
have of a horse upon even such a description as 
compared with the conception he would have if you 
concluded your description by having a horse led 
out before his eyes. An editorial may be well 
written; but a cartoon by Nast would make an im- 
pression that columns of clear, well written 
editorial would fail to make. 

I return to the question: ''What is the most 
adequate and impressive representation of the great 
central truths of Christianity? Let us narrow the 
question to the exact point that is involved in each 



114 BAPTISM. 

individual case of baptism. What is the most 
impressive confession of faith that can be made by 
any new-born Christian? He is about to make his 
confession before the world. If he is to make it 
most impressively how shall he proceed? We are to 
suppose that those before whom he makes it have 
already heard a verbal statement, in one form or 
another, of the great truths which this convert is 
ready to confess. Shall they be restated, and the 
convert be required to say that he believes in those 
truths, and that henceforth his life is to be a 
Christian life? Or shall he simply say in public 
that his life is henceforth to be a Christian life, 
and shall the great truths to which he thus declares 
his adherence be left unexpressed and to be 
understood by those who hear the confession? 
Shall this convert thus go forth as a Christian, and 
shall it be held that he has made the most 
impressive confession of faith that is possible? 
Cannot the great truths of his confession be 
gathered together and put into some single act^ 
some ''objectlesson," some pictorial representation? 
The question has been answered with authority. 
The Divine Founder of our religion, he around 
whom all its truths center, has ordained baptism 
as the symbol that shall enshrine all these glorious 
truths. 



WHAT FOR. 115 

I close the consideration of this first point with 
the eloquent words of another : '^Wouldst thou 
symbolize thy death in sin and thy resurrection to 
holiness? Then be buried by baptism into death ; 
that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by 
the glory of the Father, even so thou also mayst walk 
in newness of life. (Rom. 6 : 4.) Wouldst thou 
symbolize thy total defilement and thy desire for 
total purification ? Then arise and be baptized, 
and wash away thy sins. (Acts 22 : 16.) Wouldst 
thou symbolize thy belief in a buried and risen 
Mediator, and thy participation in his death and 
resurrection ? Then be buried with him in bap- 
tism, wherein also arise with him. (Col. 2 : 12.) 
Wouldst thou symbolize thy confident expectation 
that thou shalt share in his blissful immortality ? 
Then submit thyself to baptism — descending into 
the liquid tomb and emerging ; for, if thou art 
planted together with him in the likeness of his 
death, thou shalt be also in the likeness of his 
resurrection. (Rom. 6:5.) Oh, glorious symbol 
this of the Christian's Creed ! He may tell me in 
words all that he believes about himself and about 
his Lord. He may tell me of his sins and of his 
hopes — his tears for the past and his resolves for 
the future. He may tell me all that Jesus has 



Il6 BAPTISM. 

done for him, and all that he intends to do for 
Jesus. But when I see him silently submitting 
himself to holy baptism, I read a more eloquent 
story, told in a language which all peoples of the 
earth can understand ; which changes not with 
the flight of years which no oratory can rival ; 
which carries the head, because it first carried 
the heart ; which is the truth of God expressed in 
the act of man. Not that there is anything in the 
ordinance which savors of regenerating or sancti- 
fying tendency ; for baptism is a symbol^ not a 
power ; a shadow, not the substance. And it 
shadows forth, at the same instant, the most mo- 
mentous events in the history of Christ and in the 
history of the Christian ; all that Christ has suffered 
and done for us ; all that we mean to suffer and 
do for Christ; all that we are by nature ; all that 
we hope to be by grace. Verily, none but a God 
infinite in counsel could have devised a rite so sim- 
ple and yet so dense with meaning and glory ! To 
him be all the praise !" 

BAPTISM IS ESSENTIAL TO OBEDIENCE. 

That is the second point of which I wish to 
speak. The question involved is whether Christ 
intended that his disciples should, to the end of 



WHAT FOR. 117 

time, be baptized — whether any should be baptized, 
and whether all to the end of the age should be 
baptized — whether the rite of baptism is divinely- 
instituted, and whethet it is of perpetual obligation. 
It ought not to be difficult to settle that question. 
In the settlement of it, these facts are decisive: 
First, Christ himself submitted to baptism. He 
was baptized by John in Jordan. The oft-discussed 
question as to whether John's baptism was Christian 
baptism does not come in here. The point is that 
Christ submitted to an external rite called baptism, 
saying the while, indeed, that thus it became him 
''to fulfill all righteousness." Secondly, Christ 
baptized others — ''When, therefore, the Lord knew 
that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and 
baptized more disciples than John ^ "^ he left 
Judea, and departed again into Galilee." It is true 
that the evangelist puts in the qualifying clause:- 
* 'Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his dis- 
ciples." But that does not materially affect the 
case. It is a thoroughly recognized principle that 
"what one does through another, he does himself;" 
that is to say, while he does not actually perform 
the deed with his own hands, he is chargeable with 
the responsibility of it. So in the case before us. 
Baptism being administered by the disciples of 



Il8 BAPTISM. 

Jesus under his eye, and by his approval, he was 
responsible for it — it was, so far as responsibility 
was concerned, his own act. The evangelist evi- 
dently did not mean, by the qualifying clause, to 
disclaim for Jesus any sanction of what his disciples 
thus did. The intention was simply to state the 
case as it was, to make the record accurate. Thus 
we see that Jesus was himself baptized, and that, 
during his own public ministry, he baptized those 
who came to him, administering the rite by the 
hands of his disciples. 

Now, furthermore, in the third place, we find 
that, when Jesus was about to ascend into heaven, 
he commanded baptism. That w^as a part of the 
''Great Commission." If we pursue our -exami- 
nation of the sacred record after his ascension, we 
shall see how the inspired apostles regarded the 
matter. It was not long before there was a great 
ingathering of souls under the preaching of Peter 
on the day of Pentecost. Convicted of sin, they 
said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles: ''Men 
and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter 
said unto them: "Repent and be baptized, every 
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the 
remission of sins." He did not say simply, 
"Repent" as if the inward disposition were all. 



WHAT FOR. 119 

and the external rite nothing. No; but the injunc- 
tion was, ''Repent and be baptized." When the 
Philippian jailer was converted, he was baptized 
under the eye of Paul and Silas. It is worthy of 
mention, in this connection, that the great apostle 
to the Gentiles, when the scales fell from his eyes 
under the hand of the divinely appointed Ananias, 
of Damascus, he ''arose and was baptized." The 
apostolic letters also bear unmistakable signs of 
having been addressed to churches whose members 
had been baptized, thus showing, beyond question, 
that baptism was established in the kingdom of 
Christ upon earth, at that time, as an initiatory rite. 
What has already been said ought to be quite 
sufficient to show, not only that baptism was 
divinely instituted, but also that it was intended 
by the Lord to be perpetuated to the end of the 
world. There are, however, two other consider- 
ations for its perpetuity which I wish to mention. 
One of these is drawn from the place which 
baptism holds in the "Great Commission." How 
does that grand marching order read ? Go 
ye therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father and of the 
Son and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them 
to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 



I20 BAPTISM. 

manded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even 
unto the end of the world." Observe two things: 
First, the command to baptize is linked to the 
command to disciple. The two are made co-exten- 
sive. The command to baptize extends exactly as 
far as the command to make disciples. That is 
true of the extent in time as well as in space. It 
ought not to be doubted that the command to make 
disciples extends to the end of time. If that 
extends to the end, the command to baptize extends 
to the same limit. If anybody should be so daring 
as to doubt that these commands to make disciples 
and to baptize them were not intended by the 
Master to be perpetual, his doubt would be most 
effectually precluded by the promise with which the 
"commission" is sealed. That is the second thing 
to be observed. Said the Saviour: "Lo, I am 
with you alway, even unto the end of the world." 
The /ri^/^/i-^ was to hold good to the end, and so 
the commands were to be binding to the end. 
The other consideration I wish to mention, as 
showing the perpetuity of the ordinance of baptism, 
is drawn from the connection with the Lord's Sup- 
per. In I Cor. II : 26 we read: "As often as ye 
eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the 
Lord's death till he come." That language leaves 



WHAT FOR. 121 

no room whatever to doubt the perpetuity of the 
supper. It will be shown when I come to the dis- 
cussion of the supper in this series, that as baptism 
symbolizes death to the old life and entrance upon 
a new life, so the supper symbolizes the nurture 
and growth of the new life. Baptism is regenera- 
tion in symbol, and the Supper is sanctification in 
symbol. Now, it is manifestly natural to suppose 
that, if the symbol of sanctification was to be per- 
petuated, the symbol of regeneration was, in like 
manner to be perpetuated. Any other supposition 
would be exceedingly unnatural. 

I do not think it necessary to go further with the 
arcrument to show that it is the wish of our Lord, 
that to the end of time, people, upon becoming his 
disciples, should be baptized. Much more might 
be said; but it is unnecessary. Let it, therefore, 
be granted that Jesus commands baptism. That 
being true, it follows, of course, that baptism is 
essential to obedience. 

TWO QUESTIONS. 

Before closing the discussion of to-day, I wish 
to answer two questions that might arise in the 
mind of some one by way of objection. 

I St. It might be inquired: ''Why do you 



122 BAPTISM. 

Baptists make so much of baptism? ' Suppose it 
is freely granted that baptism is essential to 
obedience; baptism then becomes only one of 
many duties — and why lay so much stress upon 
this one duty?" That, now, is one objection to 
Baptist teaching on the importance of baptism, as 
the objection lies in the minds of a great many 
people. It requires little scrutiny to discover that 
there is here a complex conception. There are 
two ideas. One is that baptism is no more im- 
portant than any other duty. The other idea is 
that Baptists make more of baptism than is made 
of it by other Christians who baptize. 

Is it true, then, that baptism is no more important 
than any other duty ? Is it true that to neglect to 
be baptized, when one has become a disciple, is no 
worse than to neglect just any other duty that might 
be named ? If there is any one here to-day who 
so views the matter, I ask him to consider these 
facts: I. It is a duty that requires to be performed 
only once. That single and simple fact gives 
distinction to baptism. Let the point be illustrated 
by the last filial act that a child may perform for 
his parent — a reverent burial. He may have ne- 
glected some duty to that parent while living, but he 
could, in a manner, redeem such neglect by taking 



WHAT FOR. 123 

special care to perform the duty when it came up 
again. If, however, he neglects that last service, 
which can be performed but once, there is no way 
to redeem his neglect. The fact that it can never 
again be performed gives special blameworthiness 
to his neglect of the service. But that is not all; 
it is made specially blameworthy also by the other 
fact that he is required to perform this service Imt 
once. Other duties recurred often ; this came but 
once. So it is with baptism as compared with ordi- 
nary duties. They recur often; it is required but 
once. By that fact it i^ distinguished, and for that 
reason to neglect it is specially blameworthy. 
2. Baptism is linked to discipleship as no other 
duty is linked to it. You look again at that ''Great 
Commission," so far as we know our Saviour's last 
words before his ascension to heaven. What do 
you find ? Among other things, this remarkable 
fact: While laying upon his disciples the great 
work of discipling the nations and of teaching 
them to observe all things commanded by him, he 
singles out baptism of all other duties^ and makes speci- 
fic mention of that. Do I go wrong when I call that 
a remarkable fact ? Why did he not say: Disci- 
ple all nations, and teach them all their duties — 
all things whatsoever I have commanded you? 



124 BAPTISM, 

Why single out baptism for special mention, if it 
was of no more importance than the other duties 
involved in all things whatsoever commanded? 
3. Baptism is linked to salvation as no other duty 
is linked to it. When the convicted ones on the 
day of Pentecost asked: *^What shall we do?" 
Peter replied, ^'Repent and be baptized." Peter's 
Lord before him had said: ''He that believeth and 
be baptized shall be saved." This linking of 
baptism to salvation, in the scriptures, has led some 
people to contend that baptism is essential to salva- 
tion. That is an unwarranted contention. But the 
fact which we here observe certainly places 
baptism in a unique position among Christian 
duties, and forbids that we should regard it as 
being on a level with just any other duty. 4. 
Baptism alone, in all the sacred record, was 
solemnized by a manifestation of God in his triune 
character. The occasion was that of the baptism 
of Jesus. Here stood the Adorable Son, dripping 
with the baptismal water into which he had just 
been plunged by the Baptist. Looking up, he 
saw the heavens opened, and the Holy Spirit, the 
third person in the trinity, like a dove descending 
upon him. Then came the voice of the Father, 
saying, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am 



WHAT FOR. 125 

well pleased." Is there no significance in this 
singular fact that *'once only, in the history of the 
world, has God in his triune character manifested 
himself to his creatures, and that was on the 
occasion of baptism?" ''Never before," says Dr. 
H. H. Tucker, ''never since, has the world 
witnessed such a spectacle. Once the world was 
visited by more than twelve legions of angels, but 
these were only the messengers of the throne, and 
not its occupant. Gethsemane was a place of 
lonely agony. Calvary resounds with the cry, 
'My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?' 
But in baptism the triune God has set his earthly 
throne, for there only has he been manifested to 
the world. ^ ^ Why was baptism singled out 
for such amazing display? We may not be able 
to say, but the fact stands up as a witness with a 
voice louder than ten thousand thunders as God's 
testimony in honor of baptism." 

The other idea involved in the objection w^hich 
we are now considering is that Baptists make more 
of baptism than is made of it by other Christians 
who baptize. When I say "other Christians who 
baptize," I mean those who practice what they 
regard as baptism. But is it true that Baptists 
make more of baptism than those other Christians 



126 BAPTISM. 

do? Is it true? Do they not insist upon what 
they regard as baptism just as strenuously as 
Baptists insist upon what they regard as baptism ? 
Don't they ? Will any Pedobaptist church receive 
a member without what that church regards as bap- 
tism ? Will it ? And is that not exactly the position 
of every Baptist church you ever heard of ? It 
simply will not receive into its membership any 
person without what it regards as baptism. Is not 
the difference, right here, between the Pedobaptist 
and the Baptist simply and only a difference of 
opinion as to wliat is baptism, and not a difference 
of stress laid upon baptism ? Now, is that not the 
true state of the case so far ? But let us go a 
little further. Do we not find as we push the 
inquiry that really the Pedobaptist lays more stress 
on baptism than the Baptist does ? The Baptist 
waits until a person makes a profession of religion 
before Baptism is admmistered; the Pedobaptist 
forces the ordinance upon unconsenting babes. 
Who lays more stress upon this rite ? The Baptist 
is charged with ritualism ; but does not the charge 
of ritualism lie at the door of the Pedobaptist ? 

2d. Another objection to the Baptist teaching 
may come in this form: ''Do not you Baptists 
lay too much stress on the mode of baptism ? 



WHAT FOR. 127 

May not something besides immersion answer the 
purpose ? 

To that, objection Baptists reply, to begin with, 
that they do not admit that there is any ''mode of 
baptism" in any other sense than mode of immer- 
sion. The mode or manner of immersion may 
differ within narrow limits, as for example, the 
candidate might be lowered with the minister's 
right hand or his left hand, or he might be lowered 
face up or face dowm. But the mode or manner 
of baptism, which is immersion, cannot be so 
varied as to cause it to be other tlian immersion 
without causing it to cease to be baptism. Baptists 
reply, further, that since baptism, as instituted by 
Christ, was an immersion in water, the command 
of Christ to be baptized cannot be obeyed without 
an immersion in water — that anything but im- 
mersion, submitted to for baptism, is not baptism, 
as contemplated in the command to be baptized, 
and that such submission to a rite is not obedience 
to the command. They reply, still further, that 
nothing but immersion symbolizes the truths con- 
tained in the believer's creed as he emerges from 
his old life in sin and enters upon the new life of 
race; and that, therefore, while it ought to be 
enough for determining what a Christian must do 



128 BAPTISM. 

to know that, if something else is substituted for 
immersion, the divine command to be baptized is 
not obeyed, yet it is a matter for gravest considera- 
tion that the divine mind, searching for some 
symbol which could gather up and body forth the 
great truths of a new-born Christian's confession 
of faith, selected from the wide universe of sym- 
bols tJiis particular one of immersion of the whole 
body in water, and that to make any change from 
immersion is either to ignore the symbolism which 
the divine eye saw in that particular thing, or it 
is to attempt to improve upon the selection made 
by the divine mind — an improvement which it is 
hard to discover in sprinkling or pouring. 

Baptism, then, is essential to the most impressive 
bodying forth of the great truths of a new-born 
Christian's confession of faith. For such purpose 
it was divinely selected and appointed ; and it is 
essential to obedience on the part of disciples of 
Christ, it having been divinely enjoined as a per- 
petual ordinance in his church. Such is the signi- 
ficance of baptism. That is what it is for. That 
is the use of it. 

Next Sunday I hope to take up the subjects of 
baptism. 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. I29 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. 

ACCORDING to the announcement of last Sun- 
day, I am to speak to-day upon the question 
as to who ought to be baptized. Baptists hold that 
believers alone are entitled to the ordinance. They 
regard this as the true position to hold, because 
they believe that the New Testament provides for 
the baptism of none but believers. 

My purpose this morning is not to make an 
exhaustive argument in support of this position; 
for you might consider that exhatcsting as well as 
exhaustive. I intend only to make the argument 
conclusive. It is a very easy task which I thus 
propose to myself. 

There is no better place at which to begin the 
argument than the summit where the Great Com- 
mission was uttered. We place ourselves by the 
side of the Great Master who has finished the work 
he came to do, has lain in the tomb, has risen from 
the dead, and is about to ascend to heaven. To 
the disciples whom he has called and trained he 
says: '\Go ye, therefore, and disciple all nations, 



130 BAPTISM. 

baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to 
observe all things whatever I have commanded 
you ; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the 
end of the world." 

The first question I ask is this: What relation 
do those words of the Lord seem to establish 
between discipleship and baptism? Suppose we 
had no other guide to the settlement of that rela- 
tionship; suppose the question were entirely new, 
and we had nothing but those words of the Master 
to indicate whether discipleship or baptism should 
come first — what do you think would be the con- 
clusion of any plain, straightforward, sensible 
mind? Would it not be a queerly constructed 
intellect that would come to any other conclusion 
than that to make disciples is the first thing con- 
templated in the commission, to baptize them is the 
next, and to instruct them for Christian living is the 
third? I think there is no doubt that the instruc- 
tion given by our Lord to his disciples in this case 
naturally makes the impression that he intended 
that people should become Christians before they 
should be baptized. You will please observe that 
my contention here is only that such would be the 
simplest and most natural understanding of the 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. I3I 

order of the terms in the Great Commission. I do 
not say that the order we observe there would be 
entirely conclusive, if we had only that from which 
to learn our Lord's intention. We do not need to 
rest all on that. We proceed with the argument. 
How did the apostles understand their Lord ? 
Fortunately, we get our first opportunity to look 
into their minds for a settlement of this question 
under the most favorable circumstances. It is on 
the day of Pentecost. If they could have misunder- 
stood him upon this most important subject at any 
other time, surely not at this. This is the time of 
the wonderful manifestation of the Holy Spirit 
whom the Lord promised to send to lead them into 
all truth. Under the power divine there displayed, 
many were convicted of sin and made to cry 
out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" 
Then it was that Peter, speaking for all the .apos- 
tles, and speaking in the recollection of the 
Saviour's commission and under the flood-light of 
the Holy Spirit's illumination, said: "Repent and 
be baptized." He did not say: Be baptized and 
repent. No, he put repentance first. His order 
was the same as that observed by the Master in his 
parting directions. This fact deepens our impres- 
sion as to the intention of the Master. It confirms 



132 BAPTISM. 

US in the conclusion that he intended the order laid 
down in the Commission to be authoritative and 
mandatory, as well as the things commanded. 
This order became established. In all the New 
Testament record we find no departure from it. 
Wherever repentance or faith is spoken of in 
connection with baptism this order is observed. 
Wherever the ordinance is administered there is 
express declaration or clear indication of faith 
preceding it. Witness the cases of Saul of 
Tarsus, the Centurion Cornelius, Lydia, the 
Philippian jailer, and . others 

Let us go one step further. If we need any- 
thing more to make the argument conclusive, we 
have what we want in the design of baptism. We 
considered, last Sunday, the symbolism of baptism. 
We saw how it symbolized death and resurrection, 
and was intended by the Master to be a confession 
of faith — to declare to the world the belief of the 
baptized in the great central truths of Christianity, 
and to declare his death to sin and his purpose to 
walk in newness of life. The particular point 
that is suited to my argument just here is the fact 
that baptism was mtended to declare the death of 
the baptized to sin, and his purpose to walk in 
newness ot life. In this aspect of it, baptism was 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. I33 

intended by the Master to be a symbol of regene- 
ration, an outward sign of an inward grace. Now, 
manifestly, if it Was intended to be an outward 
sign of an inward grace, it was not intended by 
the God of truth to be administered where the 
inward grace did not exist. Remember, now, that 
the ordinance has no power to corifer grace. It 
only signifies the grace already conferred. It does 
not regenerate, but only signifies regeneration 
already accomplished. That, we have already 
decided, is 'the scriptural view of it. Now, then, 
if that is true — if the Lord intended that baptism 
should not regenerate, but signify regeneration 
already accomplished; that it should not confer 
this inward grace, but serve only as an outward 
sign of the inward grace already conferred — if the 
Lord intended that^ then is it not seen how incon- 
sistent we should be making him, by supposing 
that he intended the ordinance to be administered 
in any case where the inward grace of regeneration 
had not already been conferred ? How could he 
be supposed to appoint baptism as an outward sign 
of an inward grace, and, at the same time, intend 
that it should be administered where there was no 
inward grace to signify ? Appoint it as a sign, 
and then direct it to be administered when the 



134 BAPTISM. 

thing signified does not exist! Give it a. meaning, 
and then order it to be administered in such a way 
as to destroy that meaning! No, the Lord of truth 
did not do anything of the sort. The argument I 
make for believers' baptism, then, is this: In the 
Great Commission, under which we do all our 
Christian work, Jesus put discipleship before bap- 
tism. On the dav of Pentecost, in the midst of that 
■J ^ 

matchless manifestation of the Holy Spirit's 
presence and power, the apostles put discipleship 
(repentance, which for this argument is the same 
thing,) before baptism. The same precedence we 
find given to discipleship all through the sacred 
record. This fact makes it sufficiently clear that 
the Saviour put discipleship and baptism into the 
Commission in the order which he intended they 
should always hold. This conclusion, thus made 
sufficiently clear, is put beyond all question by the 
design of baptism as an outward sign of an inward 
grace. 

I do not wish to be tedious. The argument 
might be much extended and elaborated. I do not 
regard that as necessary. I believe it must be 
conclusive in the shape in which I have put it, if 
one is disposed to yield to the force of anything. 
The onl}^ doctrine out of harmony with this of 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. 135 

believers' baptism which we need to consider, is 
that which brings infants to the ordinance. The 
doctrine of believers' baptism which we have been 
considering, would seem effectually to exclude the 
baptism of adult unbelievers, and along with them, 
infants as well. I say infants as well ; for, if it 
excludes infants, there could surely be no doubt 
about the exclusion of adult unbelievers. The 
infants would be the last to be excluded. In other 
words, the baptism of infants has a stronger and 
wider hold upon Christendom than the baptism of 
adult unbelievers. There are some good people 
who believe in having the unconverted to join the 
church (and to be baptized) '^to get religion." But 
those who believe in that are fewer, by far, than 
those who believe in infant baptism, and they are 
of those who believe in infant baptism; that is to 
say, those who hold to the baptism of adult unbeliev- 
ers are a part and only a part of those who hold to 
infant baptism. The baptism of infants, therefore, 
as being a practice more widely extended and 
more firmly rooted than the baptism of adult unbe- 
lievers, I shall now take up, with the intention of 
showing that it has no scriptural ground whatever 
to rest upon, and that hence its existe^ice is to be 
considered no argument against the doctrine of 
believers' baptism held by Baptists. 



136 BAPTISM. 

I will give the argument for infant baptism as 
stated by Dr.- Philip Schaff. That ought to be 
considered fair by the great body of Pedobaptist 
Christians. I give the argument in his own words. 

I. Here is his first point: ^*The general com- 
mand to baptize all nations may naturally be 
interpreted to include the baptism of infants; and 
the mention of the baptism of the three thousand 
on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 41) and of five 
households (Acts 10: 48; 16: 15; i Cor. i: 16; 
16: 15, where the presence of children in some is 
far more probable than their absence in all), joined 
to the reiterated assertion that the promise of the 
remission of sins and of the Holy Spirit was to the 
believers and \kv^\x children (Acts 2: 38, cf. 3: 35), 
make out a strong probability, to say the least, that 
infants were baptized by the apostles." 

You will observe that there are four items in this 
first part of the argument. 

(a) In the first place, he says that ^^the general 
command to baptize all nations may naturally be 
interpreted to include the baptism of infants." The 
question at once arises, however, in some of our 
minds as to where we may find the '' command to 
baptize all nations." I suppose the Great Com- 
mission is intended. The command there couples 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. 137 

^'making disciples" with baptizing. It seems to 
me that the natural interpretation of this command 
would cause us to understand that baptizing is to 
be co-extensive with ''making disciples;" that it is 
to extend so far and no farther. That is really the 
meaning. The conception is exactly this: The 
baptizing is to follow right along behind the mak- 
ing of disciples, the connection between the two 
being so close, indeed, that the baptizing is to be 
considered the consummation of the making of 
disciples. According to that conception, none are 
to be baptized except those whose baptism may be 
the consummating act of making disciples of them. 
To be sure, this is not to be construed in such a 
way as to involve any regenerating efficacy in bap- 
tism. The true idea is to be found in another 
direction. Baptism is a confession^ as we have 
seen; and the thought of the Master was that a 
man is not a disciple in the fullest sense until he 
has made a confession of his discipleship. The 
confession of his allegiance consummates that 
allegiance; and baptism is the confession required. 
You are, no doubt, wondering how this interpreta- 
tion includes the baptism of infants. It most 
emphatically excludes them. The view of the 
passage which I have thus presented I find to be 



138 BAPTISM. 

in harmony with Meyer, the great German Luth- 
eran commentator, who says: ^^hifant baptism 
cannot possibly have been contemplated in 'baptiz- 
ing,' nor of course, in all nations, either." Again 
he says. ''The 'hearing of faith' (Gal. 3: 2) and 
the 'faith of hearing' (Rom. 10: 17) are understood, 
as a matter of course, to have preceded the bap- 
tism." You will remember that Meyer was a 
Pedobaptist; and also that as a scientific interpreter 
of the New Testament he has had no superior in 

the centurv. 

•J 

(b) Dr. Schaff's second item in the first part of 
the Pedobaptist argument is, "the mention of the 
baptism of the three thousand on the day of Pen- 
tecost." It is somewhat difficult to see what force 
that has as an argument for infant baptism. Where 
is the point of the remark ? Surely it is not a 
variation of the 'old exploded notion that three 
thousand could not be ivtmcrscd in one day. That 
was once held by some to be a very valid argu- 
ment against immersion, as if it took any great 
deal more time to immerse than to sprinkle, since 
the most of the time consumed in baptizing is con- 
sumed in repeating the formula, which must be 
done, of course, in the case of sprinkling as well 
as immersion. Is it possible that the baptism of 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. 1 39 

the three thousand at Pentecost is brought forward 
in favor of infant baptism on the ground that 
infants are smaller than adults, and therefore re- 
quire less time to be baptized ? Would it, indeed, 
be unkind to suppose that. Then let us not 
make the supposition. The only other possible 
ground for bringing forward the three thousand, in 
this connection, that I can think of, is the idea that 
in so large a company of people to be baptized at 
one time there must have been some infants. But 
why infants ? Within a few months, I have my- 
self listened to preaching in the midst of an 
audience of five thousand people and not an infant 
among them. Suppose the conditions of Pentecost 
had existed there — suppose an apostle had been 
preaching to that crowd, and it had been the first 
time they had ever heard the gospel, and the Holy 
Spirit had come upon them in pentecostal power — 
would it have been strange, if there had been 
three thousand of those people applying at once for 
baptism ? There are many cases in the history of 
Christianity where thousands have been baptized in 
a day. I mention in this connection only one case. 
It is a modern one. It is one in which there was 
certainly no infant baptized. It was the baptism 
of 2,222 in the Baptist mission among the Telugus 



140 BAPTISM. 

in the year 1878. If anything more were needed 
to set this argument at rest, it could be found in 
the scriptural account of the three thousand. Here 
are the words : ''They that gladly received his 
word were baptized ; and the same day there were 
added unto them about three thousand souls ; and 
they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine 
and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in 
prayer." Is it not marvellous that the baptism of 
people of whom it was said that they gladly re- 
ceived the word of the preacher, and continued 
steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, 
and in breaking of bread, and in prayers — is it not 
marvellous that the baptism of such people should 
be brought forward in support of the baptism of 
infants, just because there happened to be three 
thousand of them ? 

(c) The third item in the Pedobaptist argument, 
as presented by Dr. SchafT, is the mention of the 
baptism of ''five households, where the presence 
of children in some is far more probable than their 
absence in all." Why, indeed, is it more probable 
that there should be infants in some of those 
households than that they should be absent from 
all? Is it a thing so uncommon to find households 
without infants that the me«ntion of the baptism of 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. I4I 

five households, in all the New Testament record, 
should create a presumption that infants were 
baptized, when the invariable order was repent 
first and be baptized afterwards? But let us look 
at the cases cited. The first of them is the com- 
pany to which Peter preached in the house of 
Cornelius at Caesarea. Here is what the record 
says: *^ While Peter spake these words, the Holy 
Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 
And they of the circumcision which believed were 
astonished, as many as came with Peter, because 
that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift 
of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak 
with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered 
Peter, can any man forbid water, that these should 
not be baptized, which have received the Holy 
Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them 
to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Cor- 
nelius had called in his kindsmen and friends in 
anticipation of Peter's coming, with regard to 
which he had been instructed in a vision. Peter 
preached the word of the Lord to these Gentiles ; 
the Holy Spirit fell upon them; and they were 
baptized. What earthly support for infant baptism 
in that? The second case cited is that of L3'dia. 
This woman was a seller of purple, from Thyatira. 



142 BAPTISM. 

Paul and Silas found her and other women at a 
place of prayer outside the city of Philippi. 
Lydia was converted and baptized. Her house- 
hold, also, were baptized. Were there any infarits 
among those baptized? The record does not say 
that Lydia had any children at all. She had a 
^^household," but that does not necessarily mean 
that she had children. The idea of business 
is made very prominent in the account. She was 
a seller of purple. That household may have 
been a business family. It is not uncommon even 
now to see a w^oman without children conduct a 
business in which she engages other women. If 
Lydia had children of her own, they may have 
been grown daughters. Only women are spoken 
of in the account of those who were at the place 
of prayer. Remember also that Lydia was away 
from her home. She was only sojourning at 
Philippi to prosecute her business. That fact 
would naturally lend itself to the supposition that 
her household consisted of grown daughters or 
other women associated with her in her business. 
The next case cited is that of the Philippian jailer. 
But the record says of this case, that 'Hhe word of 
the Lord" was spoken ''to all that were in his house," 
and also that he ''rejoiced, believing in God with 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. I43 

all his house." The jailer and all his house heard 
the word, they all believed, and they all rejoiced. 
If there are any infants who do all those things, we 
welcome them to the baptismal waters! The last 
case cited is the baptism of the household of 
Stephanas. There are two allusions to this case in 
Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. In one place 
(i : 16) he says: ''I baptized also the household 
of Stephanas." In the other place {i6: 15) 
he says: ^'Ye know the house of Stephanas, 
that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they 
have addicted themselves to the ministry of the 
saints." You will see at a glance, what the case is 
worth in support of infant baptism. All we know 
about the household of Stephanas is that they were 
baptized by Paul upon his first visit to Corinth, and 
that, five years later, when he was writing to the 
Corinthian church, he referred to this Christian 
family by saying that they had addicted themselves 
to the ministry of the saints, and that special 
deference ought to be paid by the other members 
of the church to such as these. If any infants 
were baptized in that family, they certainly had 
given themselves ^'to the ministry of the saints" at 
a very early age, and had won the right to special 
deference while still very young ! 



144 



BAPTISM. 



On this whole subject of household baptisms, I 
will quote some words from Meyer. He says: ^^If 
in the Jewish and Gentile families which were 
converted to Christ there were children, their 
baptism is to be assumed in those cases when 
they were so far advanced that they could 
and did confess their faith on Jesus as the 
Messiah; for this was the universal, absolutely 
necessary qualification for the reception of baptism. 
If, on the other hand, there were children still 
incapable of confessing, baptism could not be 
administered to those to whom that which was the 
necessary presupposition of baptism for Christian 
sanctification was still wanting." 

(d) The fourth item in the Pedobaptist argument 
as presented by Dr. Schaff is ''the reiterated 
assertion that the promise of the remission of sins 
and of the Holy Spirit was to the believers and 
their children." We are referred to Acts 2: 38, 
and told to compare that with 3: 25. The first 
passage runs thus: ''Then Peter said unto them, 
repent and be baptized every one of you in the 
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and 
ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit; for the 
promise is unto you and to your children, and to 
all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. I45 

God shall call." That passage, now, to support 
infant baptism! The people were exhorted to 
repent and be baptized; and the assurance was 
given that they would receive the Holy Ghost; 
and the ground upon which this assurance was 
given, was that ''the promise is to you and to your 
children and to all that are afar off; even as many 
as the Lord our God shall call." ''Your children;" 
that is, your descendants^ not infants ; for that is all 
the word translated "children" means. "To all 
that are afar off;" that is the heathen Gentiles — the 
promise is made to them too. But the promise is 
limited on one side by the condition, "repent and 
be baptized;" and it is limited on the other side by 
"as many as the Lord our God shall call." And 
yet that passage is brought forward as a support to 
infant baptism! If it proves that infants, without 
repentance, are to be baptized, it also proves that 
"all that are afar off" are to be baptized, without 
repentance. When we compare 3: 25, the argu- 
ment is not improved. 

2. Here is the second part of the Pedobaptist 
argument as stated by Dr. Schaff : "Christ's treat- 
ment of children whom he blessed, and pronounced 
to be members of the kincrdom of heaven. Why, 
then, should they not also be fit to bear the sign 



146 BAPTISM. 

and seal of such membership ? All baptism is in 
idea an infant baptism, and requires us to begin 
life anew in a truly childlike spirit, without which 
no one can enter the kingdom of God." What a 
mixture of truth and error is here ! 

(a) In the first place, it is said that Christ pro- 
nounced the little children ^'members of the 
kingdom of heaven." That is not what the record 
says about that beautiful incident of Christ blessing 
the children. The Great Teacher did, indeed, 
say that the kingdom of heaven is composed of 
people who are like children. His teaching in that 
connection was that in order to be a member of the 
kingdom which he came to establish a man must 
become childlike in s-pirit. That was a very differ- 
ent thing from saymg that those particular children, 
who were brought to him, or that any other par- 
ticular children, were actually members of the 
kingdom; and it was a very different thing from 
saying that children as a class are members of the 
kingdom. 

(b) It is said, in the second place, in this part of 
the Pedobaptist argument that ''all baptism is in 
idea an infant baptism." That is true. The scrip- 
tural idea is that a man ought to be baptized as 
soon as he is born again^ and therefore while he is 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. I47 

a '''babe in Christ.'''' But where is the shadow of 
support in that truth for the baptism of one who is 
not a ''babe in Christ ^^' but only a babe in Adam? 

3. The third and last part of the Pedobaptist 
argument as stated by Dr. Schaff is now given : 
''The analogy of circumcision which began with 
adult Abraham, and then extended to all his male 
children. Baptism is the initiatory rite of intro- 
duction into the Christian church, and the sign and 
seal of the new covenant, as circumcision was 
the sign and seal of the old covenant (Rom. 4 : 11). 
The blessing of the old covenant was to the seed 
as well as to the parents ; and the blessing of the 
new covenant cannot be less comprehensive. In- 
fant baptism rests upon the organic relation of 
Christian parents and children (i Cor. 7 : 14). It 
is a constant testimony to the living faith of the 
church, which descends not as a heirloom, but as 
a vital force, from parent to child." 

(a) The first appeal in this part of the argument 
is to the account of circumcision as found in Rom. 
4:11. A candid consideration of that statement 
will show that infant baptism is excluded by it, in- 
stead of supported. The whole force of the 
apostle's argument there hinges upon the fact that 
Abraham was circumcised, not before^ but after 



148 BAPTISM. 

he believed. It was, therefore, his faith, and not 
his circumcision, or any other rite or ceremony 
or work of law, that was reckoned to him for 
righteousness. He received this sign of circum- 
cision as a seal of the righteousness of faith; 
and the design of this was that he might be 
''the father of all that believe, though they be 
not circumcised." If that passage proves any- 
thing at all about baptism, it would prove that 
baptism ought to come after faith ; but the fact is 
it proves nothing at all about baptism. About the 
only relation between baptism and circumcision is 
that both are initiatory rites. One was initiatory 
to membership in the Jewish commonwealth ; the 
other is initiatory to membership in a Christian 
church. Because they are both initiatory, it does 
not follow that the same classes of persons are 
to be subjected to baptism as were subjected to 
circumcision. To argue that way is like arguing 
that, because a certain ceremony is initiatory to 
membership in the Order of Odd Fellows and bap- 
tism is initiatory to membership in a Christian 
church, therefore the same classes of persons are 
to be initiated to membership among the Odd Fel- 
lows and in the Christian churches alike. 

It is said that ''the blessing of the old covenant 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. I49 

was to the seed as well as to the parents, and the 
blessing of the new covenant cannot be less com- 
prehensive." No; it is not less comprehensive. 
The difference is in the seed. One was natural, 
the other is spiritual. 

(b) The second appeal, in this last part of the 
Pedobaptist argument, is to i Cor. 7 : 14: ''For the 
unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and 
the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; 
else were your children unclean; but now are they 
holy." The argument from this is that the con- 
nection between parents and children is such that 
the piety of the parents makes the children holy, 
and so, fit subjects for baptism. The fatal objec- 
tion to that appeal is that it proves too mMch. If 
the holiness, or sanctification, here s.poken of 
by Paul was of such sort as to make the subject of 
it a proper person to be baptized, then the unbeliev- 
ing wife or husband would be so prepared as well 
as the children; for the statement is distinctly made 
that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the 
believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sancti- 
fied by the husband, and this is the reason why the 
children are not unclean. The question Paul is 
discussing has no reference whatever to baptism. 
It was the question as to whether a person upon 



150 BAPTISM. 

becoming a Christian should put away the unbe- 
lieving partner, on the ground that such partner 
was not hallowed by faith in Christ. The apostle's 
argument is that, for the same reason, one would 
be obliged to discard the children, and as the rea- 
son was not regarded as in force for the children, 
so it should not be regarded as in force for the 
partner. 

I have examined the Pedobaptist argument as 
stated by Dr. Schaff. You have already made up 
your mind as to whether it has stood the examina- 
tion. There is no better argument. You may be 
sure Dr. Schaff presented the argument fairly. I 
have already quoted Meyer as saying that faith 
was the invariable prerequisite of baptism in New 
Testament times, and that therefore infants were 
not baptized. I shall detain you to hear only one 
more testimony. It is from the great Pedobaptist 
church historian, Neander. At one time he wrote: 
'^It is certain that Christ did not ordain infant 
baptism;" at another time he wrote: ''We have all 
reason for not deriving infant baptism from apos- 
tolic institution." 

Next Sunday I shall show when and why the 
change occurred from immersion to sprinkling, 
and from believers' baptism to infant baptism. 



THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. 151 



WHEN AND WHY THE TWO GREAT 
CHANGES. 

SO far, in the discussion of Baptism, we have 
considered three questions, viz: What is 
Baptism? What Baptism is for? and Who Ought 
to be Baptized? Our appeal has been to the New 
Testament as the true and only source of Christian 
institutions. We have carried these questions to 
that fountain qf authority for settlement. We have 
interpreted the Oracles for ourselves, to begin 
with; and then we have appealed to the leaders in 
the science of interpretation who differ from us in 
practice, to say whether our interpretation is correct. 
Unhesitatingly and unequivocally they have said: 
You are right. Upon two propositions we can now 
stand and challenge refutation from any quarter. 
These two propositions are; i. Immersion alone 
is the baptism of the New Testament; 2. There is 
no trace of infant baptism in the New Testament. 
With regard to these two propositions, we are not 
in the position of a man who announces a doctrine 
as in accord with scripture teaching, and then 



152 BAPTISM. 

brings, in support of the doctrine, only his own 
interpretations and arguments from scripture. No; 
our position is far in advance of that. We lay 
down these two propositions ; we make our appeal 
to the sacred record, and draw out our argument; 
and then we call upon the scholars of world-wide 
reputation, whose practice on these points is 
different from our own, to say whether we are 
right in our interpretation; and from a mighty 
chorus of voices comes the testimony: You are 
right! This being our position, no man, except 
from the ignorance of sectarian bigotry, will say 
that our interpretation is simply a Baptist interpre- 
tation prompted by dogmatic prepossessions. We 
are in the delightful position of a prosecution at law 
seeing all the leading witnesses for the defense 
testifying to all that the prosecution contends for. 

It is a well-known principle among rhetoricians 
that a proposition may be over-refuted. The 
point is that you may so overwhelmingly refute 
your opponent's argument that he will be vexed 
instead of convinced. It is not pleasant for him to 
think he has been contending for what was so 
transparently incorrect. As I am not addressing 
these discourses to opponents, I do not need to be 
on my guard against vexing opponents by crushing 



THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. 153 

refutations of their arguments. There is, how- 
ever, this related consideration which I must reckon 
with, viz: that some who sympathize with the 
views which I have been inculcating on the sub- 
ject of baptism may be wondering how in the 
world Pedobaptist practices are so widely preva- 
lent while it is made so plain that the Baptist view 
of the subject is the Biblical view. They may feel 
like asking how the great Biblical interpreters whom 
I have quoted can thus testify that immersion is the 
baptism of the New Testament, and that there is 
no trace of infant baptism in the New Testament, 
and at the same time give their support to sprink- 
ling and to infant baptism. They may even question 
whether there is not some mistake about the state- 
ments on this subject attributed to these men. Such 
questions may very naturally arise. According to 
the presentation which I have made of the subject, 
sprinkling and infant baptism have not a solitary 
inch of ground to stand upon in the Bible. I 
realize that; and, realizing it, I stand by the pre- 
sentation I have made; and furthermore, am ready 
to answer the questions which so naturally arise 
out of this complete destruction of standing ground 
in scripture for these Pedobaptist practices. 

To the suggestion that the Pedobaptist scholars 



154 BAPTISM. 

quoted may never have written the words attributed 
to them on this subject, the answer is simply that 
they wrote these words, if they ever wrote any- 
thing. Some of their works I possess, and others 
I do not possess. Where I possess the works of an 
author, I have quoted from him directly ; where I 
do not possess his works I have quoted from other 
perfectly trustworthy authors who did possess the 
original. If, therefore, these scholars ever wrote 
anything, they wrote the words quoted from them. 
It would certainly take a great deal of hardihood 
to deny that Meyer wrote his great work on the 
New Testament. But if he wrote that work, then 
in it, while commenting on Acts i6 : 15, he wrote : 
''The baptism of the children of Christians, of 
which no trace is found in the New Testament, is 
not to be held as an apostolic ordinance, as, indeed 
it encounted early and long resistance ; but it is an 
institiitio7i of tlie chzu'ch^ which gradually arose in 
post-apostolic times in connection with the develop- 
ment of ecclesiastical life and of doctrinal teaching, 
not certainly attested before TertuUian, and by 
him still decidedly opposed, and, although already 
defended by Cyprian, only becoming general after 
the time of Augustine in virtue of that connection." 
Likewise it would require considerable hardihood 



THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. 155 

to deny that Calvin wrote his Celebrated Institutes. 
But if he wrote those, then, in the 19th section of 
the 15th chapter of the 4th book, he wrote : 
* ^Whether the baptized person is wholly immersed, 
and that three times or once, or whether water is 
only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no conse- 
quence. In that matter churches ought to be free 
according to the different countries. The very 
word baptize^ however, signifies to immerse^ and it is 
certain that immersion was observed by the ancient 
church." If he wrote a commentary on Acts, then 
in commenting on the 38th verse of the 8th chapter, 
with regard to the baptism of the Eunuch, he 
wrote : '' 'They descended into the water.' Here 
we perceive what was the rite of baptizing among 
the ancients, for they immersed the whole body ; 
now the custom has become established that the 
minister only sprinkles the body or the head." 

Although you may be satisfied that the Baptist 
view is conceded by Pedobaptist scholarship to be 
in accordance with the teaching of the Bible, you 
may be at a loss to account for the Pedobaptist prac- 
tice. You ask: When and why were the two great 
changes made ? To answer this question is the 
task I now undertake. 

The first reference, in Christian literature, to 



156 BAPTISM. 

anything besides immersion as baptism is found in 
a very small document, now familiarly known 
among scholars as ''The Didache." This is called 
by Dr. Schaff ''The Oldest Church Manual." He 
says that it "claims no apostolic authority;" that 
"it is simply the summary of what the unknown 
author learned either from personal instruction or 
oral tradition to be the teaching of the apostles, 
and what he honestly believed himself." The date 
of this writing is unknown. It is generally put in 
the second century. At some point . between the 
year 100 and the 3'ear 200, then, we come upon 
the first reference to the possible substitution of 
something else for immersion. In the 7th chapter 
of the Didache directions are given on the subject 
of baptizing. Proper instruction is first to be given 
to those who are to be baptized, ^and then the 
ordinance is to be administered. "Baptize," says 
the writing, "in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water." By 
"living water" is meant a stream, running water. 
"But if thou hast not living water, baptize into 
other water," continues the Didache; "and, if 
thou canst not in cold, in warm. But, if thou hast 
neither, pour water on the head three times, into 
the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But 



THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. 157 

before baptism let the baptizer and the candidate 
for baptism fast, and any others who can ; and thou 
shalt command him who is to be baptized to fast 
one or two days before." 

You will observe two things. First, there is no 
infant babtism here. The candidate, according to 
this document, must be instructed, and he must 
•fast, before he is baptized. Secondly, the pouring 
here provided for is only in cases of necessity. It 
must be done only when there is not sufRcient 
water for an immersion. 

The next reference to a departure from the scrip- 
tural requirements of immersion is found in a letter 
of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who lived from 
200 to 258. The question had been asked him 
whether those who had been poured upon, in cases 
of sickness, were to be regarded as legitimate 
Christians. The question had reference to Nova- 
tian, who, at Rome, about the year 250, in a dan- 
gerous sickness that was expected to end his life, 
had the baptismal water poured upon him as he lay 
in bed. Cyprian discussed the question, thus pro- 
posed to him by Magnus, at some length, and con- 
cluded that the pouring in such cases was valid. 
Such cases as that of Novatian is known in church 
history as '' clinic baptism," from the fact that the 



158 BAPTISM. 

ordinance was received b}^ the candidate in bed. 
So irregular was this clinic baptism considered, 
Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, wrote concerning No- 
vatian: ''All the clergy and a great many of the 
laity were against his being chosen presbyter, be- 
cause it was not lawful, tliey said, for any one that 
had been perfused, as he had been, to be admitted 
to any office of the clergy." 

Thomas Aquinas, who died in 1274, ^^^ ^^^ ^^'^^ 
to appeal to the New Testament in support of 
pouring or sprinkling. He said, however, that 
''the symbol of Christ's burial is more expressively 
represented by immersion, and for that reason this 
mode of baptizing is more common and more 
commendable." Be pleased to take special note of 
this wonderful fact over which we are now passing, 
viz: that in the one thousand years from Cyprian, 
the cultured Bishop of Carthage, to Thomas 
Aquinas, the "Angelic Doctor" of the Romish 
Church, there was no appeal by churchmen to the 
New Testament in support of sprinkling or pouring. 
It was in the age of Cyprian that pouring began to 
be practiced at all; and it had to plod its slow and 
weary way through the centuries until Thomas, of 
Aquino, arose, before it could find an advocate 
w^ho would venture to appeal to New Testament 
authority on its behalf. 



THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. I59 

It was not till 131 1 that sprinkling was authorized 
by a church council. It was the council which 
convened that year at Ravena. The deliverance 
of the council on that subject was in these words: 
''Baptism is to be administered by triune aspersion 
or immersion." The candidate, according to this 
decree, was to be sprinkled or immersed three times. 
Mark the fact, not only that this was the first time 
sprinkling was authorized by a church council, but 
also that this council represented only one province. 
It was not a general council of the church. 

It was not till the middle of the fifteenth century 
that sprinkling and pouring became common. 
Then the practice obtained only in the Western or 
Romish Church, the Eastern or Greek Church still 
holding to immersion. 

The year 155 1 saw the first admission of pouring 
to the English prayer book. The provision, as 
altered, read thus: ''The priest shall dip him in 
the water, discreetly and warily; but if they certify 
that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water 
upon it." This was the second prayer book of 
King Edward VI. He and his* sister. Queen 
Elizabeth, were both immersed. 

Perhaps the most curious bit of history in con- 
nection with the change from immersion to 



l6o BAPTISM. 

sprinkling is the action of the Westminster 
Assembly, which convened in the year 1643. 
It is from this assembly that Presbyterianism 
received its doctrinal standards. The assembly 
were preparing a directory. With regard to bap- 
tism, it was proposed to say: ''The minister shall 
take water and sprinkle or pour it wath his hand 
upon the face or forehead of the child." Some 
members of the assembly were not satisfied w^th 
that statement. Dr. Lightfoot, who was a member, 
kept a journal of the proceedings; and here is his 
account of the discussion that occurred August 7th, 
1644: ''Then fell we upon the work of the day, 
which was about baptizing of the child — whether 
to dip or sprinkle him. And this proposition, 'It 
is lawful and sufficient to besprinkle the child,' had 
been canvassed before our adjourning, and was 
now ready to vote. But I spoke against it as being 
very unfit to vote that it is lawful to sprinkle when 
everyone grants it. Whereupon it was fallen upon, 
sprinkling being granted, whether dipping should 
be tolerated with it. And here fell we upon a 
large and long discourse whether dipping w^ere 
essential or used in the first institution or in the 
Jews' custom. Mr. Coleman went about in a 
large discourse to prove tauvelch to be 'dipping 



THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. l6l 

over head,' which I answered at large. After a 
long dispute it was at last put to the question 
whether the directory should run: 'The minister 
shall take water and sprinkle or pour it with his 
hand upon the face or forehead of the child;' and 
it was voted so indifferently that we were glad to 
count names twice: for so many were unwilling to 
have dipping excluded that the vote came to an 
equality, within one, for the one side was twenty- 
four, the other twenty-five, the twenty-four for 
the reserving of dipping, and the twenty-five against 
it. And then grew a great heat upon it; and when 
we had done all, we concluded upon nothing in it, 
but the business was recommitted." On the fol- 
lowing day, after still further discussion, the article 
was fixed as follows: ''He is to baptize with water, 
which, for the manner of so doing, is not only 
lawful, but also suflicient and most expedient, to 
be by pouring or sprinkling water on the face of 
the child, without any other ceremony." In the 
age of Cyprian the question was raised, for the 
first time, whether pouring should be allowed as a 
substitute, in cases of necessity, for immersion 
which all recognized to be the scriptural baptism; 
by the Westminster Assembly, fourteen hundred 
years afterwards, the question was raised whether 



l62 BAPTISM. 

immersion should be allowed, and the question was 
decided in the negative by a majority of one! 

Turning now to the rise of infant baptism, we find 
the first distinct reference to it by TertuUian, who 
lived, in North Africa, from about the year 150 to 
about 220. He referred to it to oppose the practice. 
In his treatise on baptism he writes : ''Our Lord, 
indeed, says : ^Do not forbid them to come to meJ^ 
Therefore, let them come when they are grown up ; 
let them come when they understand, when they 
are instructed whither it is that they come ; let 
them be made Christians when they are able to 
know Christ." We cannot, of course, tell how 
far this practice had progressed when TertuUian 
wrote, say, about the year 200. The probability 
is that he was opposing the very beginnings of it. 
If it had taken any extended hold before this, 
traces of it would have been left in the earlier 
Christian writings. 

The first defense of infant baptism we find in an 
Epistle of Cyprian. This was about the year 250. 
He was writing to a country bishop named Fidus. 
The question Fidus had propounded was whether 
baptism should ever be administered before the 
child was eight days old, or whether it should not 
follow the law of circumcision in this particular. 



THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. 163 

Cyprian brought the question before a council. I 
call attention to these words of his answer to Fidus: 
''This was our opinion in council that by us no one 
ought to be hindered from baptism and from the 
grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving 
to all, which, since it is to be observed and main- 
tained in respect of all, we think it is to be even 
more observed in respect of infants and newly 
born persons, who on this very account deserve 
more from our help and from divine mercy, that 
immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, 
lamenting and weeping they do nothing else but 
entreat." 

The practice of infant baptism became established 
in Africa under the influence of Augustine, who 
died in 430. There was opposition to it, however, 
in portions of the Catholic Church until the twelfth 
century. Firmly and universally established in 
the Catholic Church when the Reformers came 
along it was retained by them — the badge of a 
most glaring inconsistency with their fundamental 
doctrine of justification by faith, and, at the same 
time, the badge of the. greatest imperfection of 
their work. 

Looking now into the question as to why these 
two great changes were made, w^e find that, as 



164 BAPTISM. 

they were made near the same time, so they rest 
on at least one common ground. That common 
ground was the belief that there was saving efficacy 
in baptism. This belief is unmistakable in the 
letter of Cyprian from which I have already quoted 
with regard to the baptism of infants. Chrysostom, 
the golden-mouthed preacher of Antioch, in the 
next century after Cyprian, said : * 'Although a 
man should be foul with every vice, the blackest 
that can be named, yet should he fall into the bap- 
tismal pool, he ascends from the divine waters 
purer than the beams of noon. As a spark 
thrown in the ocean is instantly extinguished, so is 
sin, be it what it may, extinguished when the man 
is thrown into the laver of regeneration." 

You will readily see how this doctrine of baptismal 
cleansing would be sufficient reason for the begin- 
ning that resulted in a complete substitution of 
sprinkling for immersion. Here is a man who is 
sick, and his sickness is supposed to be unto death. 
He has not been baptized. He must not be 
allowed to die without the saving benefit that is 
believed to lie in the baptismal rite. He cannot 
be immersed. The question arises as to whether 
the application of the water in some other way will 
not do. It is believed that to pour the water on 



THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. 165 

the sick man in bed will effect the same cleansing 
from sin that would be effected by an immersion. 
Accordingly the substitution is made. That is 
what occurred in the case of Novatian already 
cited, the first case on record, especially mentioned 
where this substitution was made. 

You may be ready to ask how this belief in the 
cleansing power of baptism could effect the change 
to infant baptism from baptism upon a profession of 
faith. Alone it could not effect the change; but it 
was not alone. If infants had been regarded as 
saved when dying in infancj^, as you and I regard 
them, infant baptism, could not have been intro- 
duced. But they are not regarded as saved. 
Augustine, he through whose influence infant 
babtism was established in Africa, taught that 
original sin consigned infants to perdition, though 
they might be only a day old, if they died without 
cleansing from that sin. It is not difficult to see 
that parents who were taught such a doctrine as 
that would hasten to do something to save their 
young children. Believing that baptism had the 
needed cleansing power, they would naturally 
have the children baptized. 

The beginning of these two doctrines of infant 
damnation and baptismal cleansing are sufficient to 



l66 BAPTISM. 

account for the beginnings of the change from 
believer's baptism to infant baptism, and from 
immersion to sprinkling; and these doctrines did 
operate in that way, beyond doubt. Infant baptism 
would make progress just in proportion as belief in 
these two doctrines made progress. As a matter 
of course, when a parent believed that his infant 
would be lost if he died without baptism, and that 
baptism would confer saving grace, the question of 
baptizing the child was settled — it would be done. 
The progress of sprinkling would be somewhat 
different. It was necessary to sprinkle only in 
cases of sickness, where the sickness was likely to 
prove fatal, and death must not be allowed thus to 
come upon one who had not been baptized. For 
infant baptism, every case was a case of necessity; 
for sprinkling, only cases of dangerous sickness 
could become cases of necessity. The progress of 
sprinkling would, therefore, be slower than that of 
infant baptism. So it was^ as a matter of history. 
Indeed, it took the triumph of infant baptism to 
complete the triumph of sprinkling. It was after 
infant baptism became universal that all infants 
were regarded as ''weak," in order that by this 
legal fiction, so to speak, they might be brought 
under the provision in the baptismal directories 



THE TWO GREAT CHANGES. 167 

that, ''if the child is weak, the water may be 
poured or sprinkled upon him." 

To be sure, other considerations may have oper- 
ated to effect the two great changes as to the 
ordinance of baptism; but I am satisfied that those 
I have mentioned are the leading ones. And now, 
in conclusion, I wish to say to you that neither of 
these considerations stands in the way of a return, 
by Pedobaptist brethren, to the apostolic practice in 
the matter of baptism. They do not believe in 
infant damnation; and they do not believe in bap- 
tismal cleansing. They are holding on to the 
dead forms of sprinkling and infant baptism,. after 
they have given up the docti'ines that brought these 
forms into existence ; and they are trying to sustain 
these forms by other doctrines from which they can 
never receive any support. For anybody but 
Catholics, the practice of sprinkling and of infant 
baptism is an anachronism. I wish to make this 
further concluding remark: By refusing to return 
to the apostolic practice with regard to the ordi- 
nance of baptism, our Pedobaptist brethren are 
themselves holding between them and us the 
greatest barrier to that external union about which 
they often speak with so much unction and elo- 
quence. It is they who are away from the 



l68 BAPTISM. 

apostolic practice at this point, their own scholar- 
ship being the witness; and it is hardly fair for 
them to expect us to follow them in that departm*e 
from the way laid down by the apostles. They 
must excuse us when we decline to go away, and 
when we insist that the union for which we long 
and pray as much as themselves, can only be 
brought about by their return to the way of the 
the apostles— a way from which the Christian 
church very early deflected under the influence of 
the tw^o errors of infant damnation and baptismal 
regeneration, and a way to w^iich we, in the good 
providence of God, have already returned. 

The next discourse will deal with the Lord's 
Supper. 



THREE GREAT IDEAS. 169 



THE THREE GREAT IDEAS UNDERLY- 
ING THE INSTITUTION. 

COMING now to the Lord's Supper, I propose 
to allow two questions to determine what I 
shall say. These questions are: (i) What were 
the ideas of the Master underlying his institution 
of this ordinance? (2) Who should observe the 
ordinance? Each of these questions wall require 
an entire discourse. We take up the first one of 
them to-day. 

THE IDEAS UNDERLYING THE INSTITUTION. 

The language of scripture is in order: ^'And as 
they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, 
and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, 
eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, 
and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying. 
Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the 
New Covenant, w^hich is shed for the remission 
of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink 
henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until that 
day when I drink it new wath 3^ou in my Father's 



lyO THE SUPPER. 

kingdom." (Matt. 26: 26-29.) ''For I have 
received of the Lord that which also I delivered 
unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in 
which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he 
had given thanks, he brake it and said. Take, eat; 
this is my body, which is broken for you ; this do 
in remembrance of me. After the same manner 
also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying. 
This cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do 
ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 
For as often as 3^e eat this bread, and drink this 
cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 
(i Cor. 11: 23-26.) '^The cup of blessing which 
we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of 
Christ? The bread which we brake, is it not the 
communion of the body of Christ? For we being 
many are one bread and one body; for we are all 
partakers of that one bread." (i Cor. 10: 16-17.) 
In the first of these passages, we have Matthew's 
account of the institution of the Supper. In the 
second we are told by Paul that he there gives the 
account which the Master himself had given to 
him; and the apostle adds a comment of his own 
upon the facts. In the third passage, Paul refers 
to the Supper for the sake of an argument he is 
making on another subject, and thus incidentally 



THREE GREAT IDEAS. I7I 

gives an idea about the nature of the ordinance. 
In these three passages, now, we discover three 
ideas as involved in the general notion of the 
Lord's Supper. Our view of the New Testament 
being what it is, I think we may assume, without 
argument, that the ideas here found, in Matthew 
and Paul, are the ideas that underlay our Lord's 
institution of the Supper. The three ideas are: 
Commemoration, Confession and Communion. 

COMMEMORATION. 

''This do in remembrance of me," said the 
Saviour. The ordinance, in this aspect of it, takes 
right hold of the heart. Here is a memorial, a 
keepsake, of the departed friend. ''When you 
come around the table, in all the future of your 
lives, and look upon these emblems of my broken 
body and of my blood poured out, you will think of 
me. You will think of me then as at no other 
time. These emblems will speak to you in a 
language more impressive than any other. The 
thoughts which they will express will not be mourn- 
ful, but joyous ones. They will tell you of m}^ 
love — a love surpassing that of all other friends — a 
love which showed itself in unwearied care and 
kindness while I lived, and that led me to the cross 



172 THE SUPPER. 

for you. The comfort of the recollection of that 
love is not to be shadowed by the thought that death 
has intervened and torn your friend away. These 
emblems are memorials, not of a lost love, a dead 
love, but of a love that lives, and dispenses the 
blessings which it won in its victory over death." 
Thoughts such as these, v/e may believe, were 
wrapped in those precious words of the Saviour: 
'^This do in remembrance of me/' We are to 
come to the Supper with grateful, joyful hearts. 
A keepsake is this ordinance, indeed; but we are 
not to come to it with feelings like those with which 
a mother handles some precious memento of her lost 
child. On the contrary, our feelings are to be the 
gladdest, the most joyous. If we come with tears, 
they are to be tears made possible by a heart 
melted with gratitude. 

COMMUNION. 

''The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not ^ 
the communion of the blood of Christ ? The 
bread which we break, is it not the communion of 
the body of Christ ? For we being many are one 
bread, and one body ; for we are all partakers of 
that one bread." Here is communion. It is, 
however, communion of the blood and the body 



THREE GREAT IDEAS. I73 

of Christ. The meaning is that, in taking the 
bread and wine of the Supper, we take the body 
and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Along with 
these words of Paul are to be put those of the 
Saviour at the institution of the ordinance when 
he said of the bread : ''Take, eat ; this is my 
body w^hich is broken for you ;" and of the wine : 
''Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new 
covenant, which is shed for the remission of sins." 
At this point the great controversies concerning 
the Supper have entered. There are two questions 
involved. These questions are : (1) What is the 
conte7it of this "Communion?" and (2) How is 
that which is contained in the "Communion" con- 
veyed to the communicants ? 

I. With regard to the first of these questions, 
we may say that there are two leading view^s, 
between which we must choose. These are the 
sacramental and the non-sacramental views. 
Rome is the leading representative of the sacra- 
mental, and the Baptists are the leading represen- 
tatives of the non-sacramental view. The matter 
in dispute is whether the Supper contains any grace 
or is the medium through which any grace is 
conferred. Rome affirms, and Baptists deny. In 
the time of the Refoiimation, Zwingli took a 



174 '^^^ SUPPER. 

position antipodal to Rome, denying that the 
Supper conveyed any grace at all. Luther got 
away from Rome very little at this point; and 
Calvin took a position which has been called ''an 
ingenious compromise between the realism and 
mysticism of the Lutheran and the idealism and 
spiritualism of the Zwinglian theory." Baptists 
hold the theory that is known in church history as 
the Zwinglian. They hold it because they believe 
that it is the scriptural view. They believe that it 
is contrary to the very genius of Christianity that 
any external or natural thing should contain or 
confer saving or sanctifying grace. They believe 
that the Saviour guarded his people against sup- 
posing that an ordinance could confer grace, 
when, on the very night of the institution of the Sup- 
per, he said: ''This is eternal life that they might 
know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ 
whom thou has sent." As baptism is a sign of the 
grace of regeneration, so the Lord's Supper is a 
sign of sanctification. Baptism signifies the new 
birth; it does not produce that change. So the 
Supper signifies that the participant is nourished 
in his new life by spiritual communion with Christ; 
it does not itself nourish that life. This spiritual 
communion that is signified by the Supper is 



THREE GREAT IDEAS. I75 

referred to when the Saviour says: '^Except ye 
eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his 
blood, ye have no life in you." (Jno. 6: 53.) 

2. If our view of what is contained in the Supper 
is correct, then the second question involved in 
the controversy is answered. It is the question as 
to how that which the Supper contains is conveyed 
to the communicants; and, of course, if there is no 
grace to be conveyed, the question ceases to be. 
I presume, however, that these questions are so 
related that wrong views about the second had 
something to do with raising the first; that is to 
say, ii the bread and wine were supposed to be a 
means of communication or conveyance, there 
must be something to be conveyed. Did not the 
Saviour say: ''This is my body ?" — ''This is my 
blood ?" If, then, his body and blood were taken, 
would not grace be conferred ? Whether a wrong 
interpretation of these words of Jesus had anything 
to do with starting wrong views about the function 
of the Supper or not, it is certain that a wron^ 
interpretation was put upon the words, Rome 
holds, and has for many centuries held, that the 
bread and wine are converted into the body and 
blood of Christ. This is the doctrine known as 
"transubstantiation." The bread and wine are 



176 THE SUPPER. 

changed into the body and blood of Christ, and so, 
inland by the eating of the Supper, the communi- 
cants are put into possession of the life of Christ in 
such a sense that Christ is in them and they in him. 
Luther taught, not that the bread and wine are actu- 
ally converted into the body and blood of Christ, but 
that the body and blood always accompany these 
elements, so that ''the body and blood of Christ are 
taken with the bread and wine, not only spiritually, 
through faith, but also by the mouth, ^ ^ but 
after a spiritual and heavenly manner." This is 
known as the doctrine of ''consubstantiation." As 
to the way in which the grace conferred by the 
Supper is conveyed, there is certainly no great 
difference between Luther's view and that of 
Rome. According to Schaff, Calvin taught that 
''believers, while they receive with their mouth the 
visible elements, receive also by faith the spiritual 
realities signified and sealed thereby." Faith, then, 
in Calvin's view, is the hand which receives the 
blessings that accompany the ordinance. 

To Calvin's view as to the way in which the 
spiritual blessings accompanying the Supper are 
conveyed, we make no objection. The point at 
which we take issue with him is under the first 
question, already discussed — the question as to 



THREE GREAT IDEAS. 1 77 

whether there are any such blessings. We do not 
agree with him in the view that this ordinance con- 
tains and carries with it a grace^ or assemblage of 
blessings, which faith receives into the soul while 
the mouth is receiving the bread and wine. We 
find nothing in the scripture teaching on the sub- 
ject to warrant such a view. 

To the Romish view that the bread and wine 
are converted into the real body and blood of 
Christ, it is enough to reply that there is really no 
sense in it, because it contradicts the teaching of 
the senses and sets at naught every test by which 
the change, if any, might be discovered. The 
language of the Saviour which is so interpreted as 
to support this view, does not require it. When he 
says : "This is my body," he means, ''This rep- 
resents my body." He often uses such language 
in a figurative way. He says, ''I am the door." 
It was not supposed that he meant that he was a 
literal door. No more did he mean that the bread 
was his literal body. 

As there is no warrant in scripture for the Romish 
view of ''transubstantiation," so there is none for 
Luther's view of ''consubstantiation;" and Luther's 
view is little more in accord with common sense 
than the Romish. We believe that, according to 



178 THE SUPPER. 

the scripture teaching on the subject, the bread and 
wine are only emblems — that they represent the 
body and blood of Christ. In partaking of these 
emblems, we signify that we live in Communion 
with Christ, that our spiritual life is nourished by 
them as the spiritual bread. Any blessing that may 
come to us in connection wdth the celebration of 
the ordinance, comes in quite another way than 
either of those taught by Calvin, Luther or Rome. 
The ordinance is well fitted to impress our hearts. 
It is a vivid representation of a scene — the scene 
of Calvary, and of a motive — the love that led 
Christ to Calvary — it is a vivid representation of a 
scene and a motive that take hold of human hearts, 
if anything will. The celebration, furthermore, is 
an act of obedience to the Saviour. Through this 
impression of the heart and through this conscious 
obedience it is that blessings may come to us in 
connection with the Supper. 

CONFESSION. 

''As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this 
cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." 
These words clearly show that this ordinance was 
not instituted simply for the benefit of the commu- 
nicants. It was not to serve merely as a memento 



THREE GREAT IDEAS. I79 

of an ascended and glorified friend and Lord, nor 
as an outward representation to oneself of his 
spiritual communion with his Lord. It was to do 
something for the world. It was to be, like bap- 
tism, a symbolic confession of faith. 

Baptism, as a confession of faith, has its central 
truth around w^hich all the others are grouped. So 
it is with the Supper. In the confession by bap- 
tism, the death to sin, the new birth^ the beginning 
of the new life, is the central fact. That gathers 
about it all the rest — sin, atonement by the death 
of Christ, the resurrection, the final glory of the 
saints. In the confession by the Supper, the cen- 
tral truth is sanctification, the nourishment and 
growth of the new life. That gathers about it the 
great fact of the life, the death, and the glory and 
future coming of the Lord, together with the co-re- 
lated facts of human sin, the atonement, and the 
resurrection and final glory of the saints. 

See how all these things group themselves 
around that one central truth of the ordinance. 
There are the bread and wine representing the 
body and blood of Christ, and so setting forth the 
truth that he is the food upon which our souls are 
to grow. But, at the same time, the bread and 
wine, by representing the body and blood of 



l8o THE SUPPER. 

Christ, set forth the great fact of his incarnation — 
'^the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." 
The bread is broken, and the wine is poured out; 
and that sets forth the death of Christ, and the 
great doctrine that without the shedding of blood 
there was to be no remission of sins. Thus sin is 
at once both brought to view and put away — both 
its existence and remedy are attested by the 
ordinance. The glory that is to follow the 
remedial efficacy of this atonement is set forth in 
the assurance of the Saviour that there is coming 
a time when he will drink the cup new with his 
people in the heavenly kingdom. He has told 
them to observe this ordinance, ''till he come." 
Here, therefore, ''they declare their unwavering 
conviction that he will come; that his kingdom 
will not be overturned by the malice of foes or 
the treachery of friends; that there never shall be 
wanting those who will celebrate his death in this 
simple and touching rite-, until he come again." 

In the next discourse, I shall take up the other 
question proposed, viz: Who should observe the 
ordinance? 



WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. l8l 



WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE THE 
SUPPER. 

T^HE question before us this morning touches 
^ the observance of the Lord's 'Supper. Last 
Sunday we looked at the great ideas underlying 
the institution; to-day we are to inquire who should 
observe it. 

The Baptist position maybe stated thus: The 
Lord's Supper is a church ordinance ; it should be 
observed under the auspices of a church ; its obser- 
vance should be participated in by only such 
persons as are members of the church under whose 
auspices the observance occurs, and such other 
persons as might become members of that church 
by a simple transfer of their names to its roll. 

My purpose now is to defend that position. For 
its defense I shall repel assaults that have been 
made upon it, and shall establish its correctness. 
Let us proceed to the business in hand. 

The Baptist position is fearfully misrepresented. 
The misrepresentation sometimes, I am sure, pro- 
ceeds from lack of information. Sometimes I am 



l82 THE SUPPER. 

afraid it proceeds from partisan malice. One of the 
most common misrepresentations is involved in the 
use of the phrase ''close communion." Indeed, all 
the misrepresentations may be said to meet at this 
point. It is sought to put a stigma upon our posi- 
tion by the use that is made of that phrase. All 
manner of ugly and irrelevant things are injected 
into the very innocent phrase; and, thus loaded, 
it is hurled at us with amazing vim and spirit. 

But why should Baptists be considered sinners 
above their brethren because they believe* in close 
communion? Do not their brethren also believe in 
close communion? Beyond any sort of doubt they 
do. There is no open communion. It is all close, 
or restricted, as opposed to open or unrestricted. I 
will make good that statement. Take the leading 
denominations of evangelical Christians in this 
State. The Baptists, of course, stand at the head 
of the column with somewhat over 80,000 commu- 
nicants. The Methodists come next with somewhat 
over 60,000. The Presbyterians come third with 
somewhat under 20,000. Now, my point is that 
none of these denominations are open communion- 
ists. The Baptists are charged with being close 
communionists, as if close communion were a sin and 
a shame, and as if they were alone in the sin and 



WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. 183 

shame of it. But they are not alone ; nor is close 
communion a sin and a shame. That it is right I 
shall show later. Just now I am to show that 
Baptists are not alone in practicing restricted com- 
munion — that, in fact, there is no unrestricted or 
open communion. We will suppose that the Lord's 
supper is being observed in a Presbyterian church. 
A company of Quakers are present. In case they 
should be so impressed by the scene as to be per- 
suaded that Christ intended that his people should 
observe this ordinance, as well as that they 
should maintain the spiritual communion with 
him thus signified, would they then and there be 
admitted to participation in the celebration of the 
ordinance in that Presbyterian church ? No; they 
would be excluded. Upon what ground ? Upon 
the ground that they had not been baptized. In 
vain our brethren from the ''Society of Friends" 
might say that they were trying to live upright and 
godly lives in humble reliance upon Christ for 
salvation; and that they did not regard water bap- 
tism as necessary in any sense, baptism of the 
Spirit being the true Christian baptism. The reply 
of the Presbyterian minister would be that the 
Presbyterian Church does regard water baptism as 
essential to obedience. The Quakers might say 



184 THE SUPPER. 

they considered the substitution of Spirit baptism 
as taking no greater Hberty with the Lord's com- 
mand than is taken in the substitution of sprinkhng 
for the immersion which he commanded. But it 
would be of no use to argue the case. The Pres- 
byterian minister would cut the matter short by 
saying that the Presbyterian Church regarded 
sprinkling as valid baptism, and that the Presbyte- 
rian Church, under whose auspices the ordinance 
was celebrated, and not the Quaker brethren, must 
be the judge in the case as to what is baptism. 
Any but a blind man must see that the communion 
in that Presbyterian church is not open communion. 
There is restriction upon it. There is a fence 
around that table. 

Again : Let us suppose that the supper is being 
observed in a Methodist church. A party of Uni- 
tarians enter. They wish to participate in the 
observance. They are denied the privilege. 
Upon what ground ? Upon the ground that they 
are not orthodox. But they insist that they are 
the most orthodox people in the world. The 
Methodist minister's reply is short. He tells them 
plainly that the Methodist Church does not con- 
sider them orthodox ; and that, since this obser- 
vance of the ordinance is occuring under the 



WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. 185 

auspices of the Methodist Church, the question of 
orthodoxy must be judged by the Methodist 
Church, and not by the Unitarians. Any but a 
bhnd man must see that the communion in that 
Methodist church is not open. There is restriction 
upon it. There is a fence around that table. 

It is not necessary that I should go further in 
that direction. As it is with these great denomi- 
nations, so it is with the others. They all put re- 
strictions upon communion. They all hedge the 
table about to some extent. None are open. 
Robt. Hall, the great English Baptist preacher, 
went further towards making the communion quite 
open than he could get Pedobaptists to follow him, 
when he declared that the terms of communion 
ought to be only the terms of salvation. No 
considerable part of Christendom would go with 
him to any such extreme as that. All the great 
denominations draw back from the position to 
which the brilliant rhetorician of Arnsby essayed 
to lead them. They instinctively draw back, as 
though that position were destructive of all order 
in the kingdom of God on earth. They all draw 
back and set up the fences quite inside the lines of 
possible salvation. There is no open communion. 
It is all close. All the great denominations put 
restrictions upon it. So far there is agreement. 



l86 THE SUPPER. 

All are agreed that there ought to be restric- 
tions; for, as a matter of fact, all do place restric- 
tions upon the communion. That being the case, 
the question comes up as to what are the proper 
restrictions. 

1. Baptists say that, first and foremost, the com- 
municant must be a Christian, We have not had 
the faculty of looking into human hearts given us ; 
and hence, what we require at this point is a Chris- 
tian profession. Here also there is agreement. 

2. Baptists say that the communicant must be a 
baptized Christian. To this our Pedobaptist breth- 
ren say. Amen. ''Yes," they say, ''we must not 
have any unbaptized people at the table of the 
Lord; for baptism certainly precedes communion 
in the divine order." I am unable to detect any 
difference between Baptists and Pedobaptists just 
at this particular point. All are still agreed. 

3. Baptists say that the communicant must be a 
ine^nber of a church. To that statement no excep- 
tion can be taken by the Pedobaptists. They do not 
invite to thesupper people who have been excluded 
from churches to which they formerly belonged. 
Nor would they invite people who, by some means, 
had been baptized, and had then refused to identify 
themselves with any church, preferring to hold that 



WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. 187 

there is no need for organization in the kingdom of 
God on earth. So far also there is agreement. 

Such, then, are the restrictions put upon the 
communion by Baptists; and we find that exactly 
the same restrictions are put upon itby Pedobaptists. 
Three external qualifications are demanded of the 
communicant. These are : A profession of religion, 
baptism, and membership in a church of Christ. 
If any one of these qualifications is wanting, there 
is no admission to the Lord's Supper. Admission 
is denied by Baptists, and it is equally denied by 
Pedobaptists. The man who wishes to commune 
without either one of these qualifications must look 
for a company who do not believe in religion, or 
baptisrn, or church organization. He cannot 
commune with any of the great Christian denomi- 
nations. Baptists or Pedobaptists. 

These three qualifications for communion may 
be resolved into one. That is cliMrch fellowship- 
Of course, there must be a profession of religion, 
baptism, and church membership, before there can 
be church fellowship. Church fellowship ma}', 
therefore, be said to include the three things that 
are demanded by all the great denominations as 
qualifications for the communion. 

No wonder if you question whether church fel- 



l88 THE SUPPER. 

lowship is really demanded by the great Pedobap- 
tist denominations as a qualification for communion 
with them. You know that a reputable Baptist 
would be welcomed to the communion in a Pedo- 
baptist church. You think that seems to contradict 
the statement that Pedobaptists require church fel- 
lowship as a qualification for communion with 
them. But look again: That Pedobaptist church 
admits that Baptist brother to their communion 
because there is nothing in his life or doctrine to 
which they seriously object. He is such a man as 
might pass into the membership of that Pedobap- 
tist church as easily as into the membership of 
some other Baptist church. The transfer, I mean, 
could be made as easily. That Baptist would be 
received into that Pedobaptist church without any 
single change of doctrinal belief. They can, 
therefore, have for him as he approaches the table 
a church fellowship of the sort that one Baptist 
church has for a member of another Baptist church. 
And that is all that I mean by church fellowship in 
this connection — such community of doctrine and 
discipline that the communicant might pass, by 
simple transfer, into the membership of the partic- 
ular church under whose auspices the supper is 
being observed. 



WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. 189 

A reputable Baptist can thus pass into the mem- 
bership of a Pedobaptist church. But the converse 
of this is not true. A reputable Pedobaptist, the 
most godly, indeed, cannot thus pass into the mem- 
bership of a Baptist church. That is so because 
certain doctrinal and formal requirements are 
necessary to entrance into the membership of a 
Baptist church which the most godly Pedobaptist 
cannot present without some change. 

That the Pedobaptists recognize this principle of 
church fellowship as a qualification for intercom- 
munion is beyond all question. The Methodist 
Discipline denies the communion to persons who 
are guilty of practices for which they would be 
excluded from the Methodist Church. That makes 
church fellowship a necessary qualification for the 
communion ; and it, properly, makes the Methodist 
Church the judge of what sort of people it will 
fellowship. Very early in this century there arose 
two parties in the Presbyterian Church in the 
United States, known as the '*01d School" party, 
and the ''New School" party. The contention 
was a doctrinal one. It continued until a breach 
came in 1837. The ''Old School" party, by an 
unconstitutional exercise of power, cut off four 
synods on account of their "New School" pro- 



190 THE SUPPER. 

clivities. The next year, 1838, the '' New School," 
thus put out of the Presbyterian Church, formed a 
General Assembly of their own. For twenty-eight 
years the '' Old School" Assembly would not com- 
mune with the /'New School." In 1866, after 
twenty-eight years of division, the two Assemblies 
united, and they sealed the union by sitting down 
together to the Lord's table. The principle put 
into practice by that ''Old School" Assembly, for 
twenty-eight years, is the same as that recognized 
in the Methodist Discipline, viz., that church fel- 
lowship is a necessary qualification for communion. 
The questions upon which the division arose were 
of such a character that there was abundant room 
for differences of opinion without any disturbance 
of church fellowship — differences of opinion such 
as exist largely among Baptists without disturbing 
their church fellowship. But the "Old School" 
party saw fit to withdraw church fellowship from 
the "New School," and, with the withdrawal of 
fellowship, they declined further to commune with 
them. Thus we have seen that Baptists and Pedo- 
baptists are agreed in holding that a profession of 
religion, baptism, and church membership are pre- 
requisites of communion. We have also seen that 
the three requirements may be resolved into the 



WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. I9I 

single one of church fellowship. Church fellow- 
ship is the only requirement demanded by either 
Baptists or Pedobaptists; and that is demanded by 
both. This demand for church fellowship is the 
one, only restriction laid upon the communion, and 
this is laid upon it by Baptists and Pedobaptists 
alike. In this they are agreed. There is no dif- 
ference. They are all close, or restricted com- 
munionists. '' But there is a difference somewhere ^^'^ 
you say. Yes, there is a difference; but the differ- 
ence is not described by the words ^'open" and 
*^ close," for all are '^ close." Where, then, is the 
difference ? It is found in what is demanded for 
church fellowship. All agree in demanding church 
fellowship; but there are differences as to the 
requirements for church fellowship. 

I. Baptists can not accord church fellowship to 
persons who have not been immersed in water 
upon a profession of their faith. You wall observe 
that there are two objections which Baptists lay 
against the baptism of Pedobaptists. The first is 
that, as a rule, their baptism is not administered 
upon a profession of faith, but during unconsenting 
infancy. If we could grant that sprinkling is 
baptism, we still could not allow that those who 
have been sprinkled only in infancy have been 



192 THE SUPPER. 

baptized. The divine command is, '^Repent and 
be baptized." Our contention is that those who 
have been baptized only in infancy have never 
obeyed that plain command. The point is that 
even an immersion in infancy is not baptism. It 
w^ill not meet the case to say that he who was bap- 
tized in infancy has since repented, and has adopted 
as his own the rite which was performed for him, 
in the name of baptism, while he was still an infant. 
Baptism has no significance whatever, unless 
repentance is supposed to have preceded it. Fur- 
thermore, leaving out of view, for the moment, 
the fact that the com-mand to be baptized 
is addressed to those alone who have repented, it 
must also be alleged that adopting in later life a rite 
to which one was subjected in infancy, is not 
obeying the command to be baptized. That com- 
mand implies, and, by virtue of the very gram- 
matical form of it, must imply co7isent on the part 
of the one subjected to the rite. Without your 
consent, there is no obedience on your part to the. 
command. The rite administered upon the consent 
of another is not obedience from you. The second 
objection we lay against the baptism of Pedobaptists 
is that they have substituted sprinkling for immer- 
sion. In doing this, they have discarded that 



WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. I93 

which was commanded by the Master, and have 
substituted, not another form of the same thing, 
but a totally different thing. He commands im- 
mersion, and they sprinkle. By discarding what 
he commanded and substituting something else 
which does not carry with it the same symbolism, 
they have become ritualists in the matter of 
baptism. Baptists do not regard this question of 
baptism as a matter of small consequence. Nor 
do Pedobaptists really so regard it. If it is a 
matter of so small consequence that they are at 
liberty to substitute sprinkling for the immersion 
commanded by the Lord, then why are they not at 
liberty to discard the ordinance completely ? As a 
matter of fact, by subjecting unconsenting infants 
to the ordinance, they make more of it than do 
Baptists. Baptists regard the matter as one of 
very great import. So do Pedobaptists. Baptists 
claim the right to judge who has been scripturally 
baptized. So do Pedobaptists. Baptists refuse 
church fellowship to those whom they do not 
consider scripturally baptized. So do Pedobaptists. 
Baptists do not consider Pedobaptists scripturally 
baptized. Pedobaptists do consider Baptists scrip- 
turally baptized. There is one difference, Mark 
that down. 



194 ^^^ SUPPER. 

2. Baptists cannot accord church fellowship to 
persons who are organized for the dissemination of 
doctrines that are regarded by Baptists as certainly 
out of harmony with the teaching of the Bible. I 
use the word certainly with discrimination. There 
are some things about which Baptists, as a people, 
do not commit the folly of contenting. That is 
one reason why there is room for difference of 
opinion among Baptists upon so many religious 
subjects. Upon some subjects the Bible is in- 
definite. Other subjects, in some of their aspects, 
are quite beyond the finite understanding of 
mortals. In such cases, it would be folly for any 
set of Baptists to put their ideas of the scripture 
teaching into definite, intelligible forms, and then 
say that he who does not believe the formulas thus 
laid down, is no Baptist. People, therefore, hold- 
ing very divergent views at some points may come 
together in a Baptist church. But Baptists can 
not, I repeat, accord church fellow^ship to persons 
who are organized for the dissemination of doc- 
trines that are regarded by Baptists as certainly 
out of harmony with the teaching of the Bible. 
From that statement our Pedobaptist brethren 
would not dissent for themselves. They would 
not avow a willingness to grant church-fellowship 



WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. I95 

to people organized for the dissemination of 
doctrines regarded by them as certainly out of 
harmony with the scriptures. When the Presby- 
terian General Assembly decided that the *'Hop- 
kinsian" theology of the ''New School" party was 
not in harmony with the Bible and the Westminster 
Confession, that Assembly withdrew church fellow- 
ship from the party adjudged heretical, and with- 
held fellowship for twenty-eight years. It is not 
certain that the ''Hopkinsian" theology is out 
of harmony with the Bible, but the General 
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church so con- 
sidered it; and upon that judgment, church fel- 
lowship was denied. So any of the great denomi- 
nations of evangelical Christians would disavow 
any willingness to accord church fellowship to 
people organized for the dissemination of doctrines 
certainly out of harmony with the Bible. Baptists 
are unwilling to accord church fellowship to such 
people ; and Pedobaptists are unwilling to do so. 
In declining to accord them church fellowship we 
do not pass judgment upon the question as to 
whether they are Christians or not. In 2 Thessa- 
lonians 3 : 15, Paul makes a distinction between 
church fellowship and Christian fellowship. He 
counsels the church to withdraw from a person of 



196 THE SUPPER. 

a certain description, and yet says : ^'Count him 
not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." It 
may be that we cannot accord church fellowship to 
man, and, at the same time, we may count him a 
brother in the Lord. Baptists recognize this, and 
so do Pedobaptists. When, therefore, we all alike 
refuse to accord church fellowship to persons or- 
ganized for the dissemination of doctrines we re- 
gard as certainly out of harmony with the Bible, 
we do not pass judgment upon them as infidels, 
and read them out of the kingdom of God. Far 
be it ! Baptists disclaim that, and so do Pedo- 
baptists. We simply deny them church fellow- 
ship. In that we are agreed. Under this princi- 
ple, however. Baptists deny church fellowship to 
all Pedobaptists. They are organized for the dis- 
semination of doctrines which we regard as con- 
trary to clear scripture teaching. If they can 
accord church fellowship to us, it is because they 
do not believe that we teach doctrines contrary to 
the clear import of scripture. That is another- 
difference. Take note of that also. 

Under the action of this principle came all those 
cases of immersed members of Pedobaptist churches. 
These are not admitted to the communion with us for 
the simple reason that they are members of organi- 



WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. I97 

zations that disseminate what we regard as error; 
and, so long as they are thus aiding and abetting 
that error, we cannot accord them the church fel- 
lowship which all regard as prerequisite to com- 
munion. Here also are to be placed such cases as 
that of the Campbellites. They are not Pedobap- 
tists. They are heretical Baptists. They are im- 
mersed, but they are organized for the propagation 
of doctrines that are contrary to the clear teaching 
of the scriptures. Hence we do not accord them 
church fellowship, and so do not admit them to the 
communion. 

A few words may now be said as to the scriptur- 
alness of the position that the Lord's supper is a 
church ordinance and that church fellowship is the 
proper prerequisite to participation in it. 

1. The first thing to be said is that all the great 
denominations of Christians agree upon that point. 
It has always been so. Amid all the controversies 
about this ordinance, there has been almost univer- 
sal agreement upon the point w^e are now discuss- 
ing. That of itself ought to be about enough to 
establish the correctness of the position. 

2. But it may be said, in the second place, that 
when we look into the New Testament, we see no 
reason to change the verdict that has been rendered 



198 THE SUPPER. 

by Christendom. We find the following things to 
be true: (i) The Saviour instituted the ordinance 
when only the apostles were present. If it was 
not committed to the apostles in some special, offi- 
cial sense, then why were not other disciples there? 
Why not all? If we had only the scene at the 
institution of the ordinance to look upon, we might 
suppose that the apostles alone were with him 
because this was intended by the Master to be 
repeated by them as his closest friends. But then 
the question would arise as to why he did not have 
his mother and the Bethany family. (2) There is, 
furthermore, the fact that the after observance was 
not confined to the apostles. We find Paul, for 
example, giving directions about the proper observ- 
ance of it in the church at Corinth. Putting 
together these two facts, viz., that only the apos- 
tles were present at the institution of the ordinance, 
and that it was observed as a church ordinance 
when Paul wrote to the Corinthians — we conclude 
that the Master instituted it with the apostles as an 
official class, as the representatives of the churches 
that would be established. In harmony with this 
conclusion is the statement of Paul to the Corinthi- 
ans that he had delivered the ordinance to them as 
Christ had delivered it to him. He was not an 



WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. I99 

apostle when the ordinance was instituted; but he 
had received special instruction about it from the 
Saviour — a fact which w^ould seem to indicate that 
it was given to him as one who would establish 
churches, and commit to them the things which 
they were to observe. Let me, then, put the argu- 
ment in this w^ay. It is certam that the supper 
was observed at Corinth under Paul's instruction, 
as a church ordinance — Paul's remarks seeming to 
exclude the supposition that it was any other'than 
a church ordinance. It is certain that the ordi- 
nance was first celebrated when only Christ and 
the apostles were present. This last fact, under 
the circumstances, would seem to indicate that the 
supper was committed to them, not as Christians, 
but as apostles, who would organize churches and 
commit to them the things to be observed. In the 
absence, among all the recorded cases, of a private 
or individual observance of the ordinance, we are 
warranted in concluding that the Christian w^orld 
has been right in holding that the supper is a church 
ordinance, and that, therefore, church fellowship is 
the proper prerequisite to communion. 

It may be held that this view of the supper, 
together with their doctrines about church organi- 
zation, would require Baptists to object to the 



200 THE SUPPER. 

non-intercommunion of Baptist churches. But that 
does not follow. While the churches, according to 
the apostolic model, are independent, as has been 
shown in a previous discourse, they are also inter- 
dependent. They do, and must, recognize the 
discipline of each other, for example; and, hence, 
they do, and must, fellowship each other's members. 
They hold to the same form of sound doctrine; 
and they are organized for the propagation of that 
doctrine. Barring control of what may be called 
local interests, as opposed to general interests, the 
members of one of these churches may be as much 
at home in another as in his own. The celebration 
of the Lord's Supper is one of the general aspects 
of church life; and, consequently, for that, a 
Baptist is as much at home in one Baptist church 
as in another. This was the sort of church fellow- 
ship that obtained among the apostolic churches — 
a special and a general fellowship. In accordance 
with these relations as existing between the apos- 
tolic churches, w^hen Paul counseled the exclusion 
of a member from the church at Corinth, visiting 
members from Philippi would take no part in the 
act of exclusion ; but, when Paul administered the 
Lord's Supper to the church at Troas, Luke, 
Timothy, Sopater, Tychicus, Trophimus, Gains, 



WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT, 20I 

Aristarchus, and Secundus, who were present from 
Asia, Berea, Derbe, and Thessalonica, would par- 
ticipate in the communion. 

I must detain you a few moments longer to 
answer some of the current objections to our prac- 
tice with regard to the communion. I shall take 
only two or three as samples. One of the com- 
monest objections is that our practice is selfish. 
The answer is that our practice is just exactly as 
selfish as the practice of the people who originated 
the objection. They admit to the communion only 
those whom they admit to church fellowship. We 
do the same. Another common objection is that 
we expect to commune in heaven, and why not on 
earth ? The answer to that is that we have the 
same sort of communion here that we expect to 
have in heaven. We expect to have Clirisiian 
fellowship in heaven; and we have that here. We 
do not expect to eat bread and drink wine when 
we reach the celestial city. Again, it is said that 
this is the Lord^s table, and we ought to exclude 
none. The answer to that is that those who make 
the objection never saw the ordinance observed 
where there were none excluded. All denomina- 
tions exclude some; all put restrictions upon the 
ordinance. Besides, the fact that it is the Lord's . 



202 THE SUPPER. 

table, so far from being an argument for unre- 
stricted communion, lays upon us an obligation to 
see that it is hedged according to the terms pre- 
scribed by the Lord. If it were our own table, 
instead of his, we could invite whom we pleased; 
but, since it is his, we must admit only those who 
have complied with his terms of admission. There 
are also some who allege as their objection to our 
practice, that they are denied the privilege of com- 
muning with some who are very dear to them. If 
they are in doctrinal accord with those loved ones, 
they can commune with them by becoming mem- 
bers of the same church. If they are not in doc- 
trinal accord with those loved ones, surely that 
must be a much greater hardship than being de- 
barred the communion. I am sure I had rather 
agree with my friend than sit down wath him at the 
same table! 

The other common objections are of the same 
general sort as these. They all miss the real 
point. In conclusion, I propose to lay my finger 
exactly on the point where the quick is to be found. 
Let me distinctly say, however, that I am not now 
about to speak of all who make objections. There 
are many no covered by the remark I shall make. 
What I want to say is this: The real ground of 



WHO OUGHT TO OBSERVE IT. 203 

objection, with our Pedobaptist brethren, is not that 
we do not admit them to the Lord's Supper in our 
churches. They do not care particularly to eat 
with us. We do not see Methodists leaving their 
churches to flock to Presbyterian churches on 
communion days; nor do we see the Presbyterians 
leaving their churches to flock to Methodist churches 
on communion days. It stands to reason that, 
after the novelty of the thing wore off, they would 
not leave their churches to come to ours on 
communion days. That is not the point. They 
are not anxious to eat with us. Here is the point: 
They want us to accord them that cimrch fellowship 
which communion implies, and which they as well 
as we require as prerequisite, and which they are 
quite willing to accord to us because they do not 
believe we teach doctrines contrary to the Bible. 
If we would only accord them that church fellow- 
ship, all would be well, and we should hear no 
more objections; but we should not have any great 
number of Pedobaptists at our communion table 
on days when they had anything going on at their 
own places of worship. 

That, now, is the real point. The point must 
not be obscured. Baptists must not allow it to be 
covered up and lost in the multitude of sentimental 



204 THE SUPPER. 

objections that are showered upon us. There are 
many excellent Christian people who think there 
is really something in these sentimental objections. 
But that is because they have never had the matter 
laid open before them, and they have never taken 
the trouble to think the subject through, and get 
at the foundation facts and principles involved. 
Let me repeat, then, that the real grievance that 
the great Pedobaptist denominations have against 
us is that we do not accord them church fellow- 
ship, but, by denying them that, we do continually 
declare that they hold and teach some doctrines 
not in harmony with the clear import of the Bible. 
We most heartily hail them as brethren in the 
Lord, and most gladly welcome them to Chidstian 
fellowship. But cliurch fellowship we cannot accord 
them. There we stand! The Lord is our helper! 
The ofrace of God be with all who love our Lord 
Jesus Christ in truth and sincerity. Amen. 



CHRISTIAN UNION, 



205 



206 CHRISTIAN UNION, 



CHRISTIAN UNION — WHAT IT IS AND 
IS NOT; HOW TO PROMOTE IT, AND 
HOW NOT TO PROMOTE IT. 

That they may be one, even as we are one. John 17 : 22. 

T^HERE is Christian union and Christian uniqn ; 
^ that is to say, there are several different 
things to which that name is applied. I shall here 
assume that when people talk about Christian 
union they intend to talk about the thing that is 
brought to view in this text. It is 07ic thing that 
here comes to view; and since various things are 
called Christian union it follows that some of the 
things so called are not the one thing of the text. 
Here is another fact you may observe, viz: That a 
man's idea of how to promote Christia7i union de- 
pends upon his idea of what Christian union is. 
The subject, therefore, opens up to us to-night in 
such fashion that I shall speak of what Christian 
union is and what it is not, and of how to promote 
it and how not to promote it. 



CHRISTIAN UNION. 207 

I. WHAT IT IS AND IS NOT. 

There are excellent brethren whose idea of 
Christian union is that amicable relations should 
obtain between the different denominations of 
Christians in a communit}^ Surely that is a state 
of things very much to be desired in every com- 
munity ; but that is not what our blessed Master 
prayed for when he was nearing the cross. Now 
just think of it : The Christ about to be offered 
up for the sins of the world pra3ang the Father 
thatj w^hen his disciples should be split up into dif- 
ferent sects by reason of different interpretations of 
his word, they might be able to keep the peace ; 
that they might be able to pursue each his owm 
work in his own way without looking cross-eyed at 
each other ; without resorting to mean trickery to 
get ahead of each other ; without taking each 
other by the ear in violent controversy ! Nay, the 
Master meant something more than that when he 
prayed that they might be one, and said he gave 
them his glory that they might be one. 

There are other good brethren who think frater- 
nal feeling is Christian union. They seem rather 
to expect that you will not have this fraternal feel- 
ing for them, if you are not of the same ''faith and 



208 CHRISTIAN UNION. 

order" with them ; and they show a little surprise 
when they find that you really do have it, and 
they begin to suspect that you are not a ^'very 
strong'^ Baptist,, or Methodist, Presbyterian, or 
whatever it may be. And if they are '*very 
strong," they wonder whether you are not a good 
subject upon whom to bestow a little proselyting 
skill. But, brethren, it is no wonderful Christian 
attainment that we should have a fraternal feeling 
for each other, though separated in creed. This 
is one of the first things— this belongs to the a b c 
of Christian life. I should be ashamed to call my- 
self a Christian if I did not have a fraternal feeling 
for all people who love my Saviour. If I did not 
have that feeling I should go back to the begin- 
ning, and seek again the forgiveness of my sins, 
and adoption into God's family. It was some- 
thing far beyond this a b c of fraternal feeling that 
Jesus prayed for. Fraternal feeling is not the 
Christian union that he yearned for as he lifted 
his heart to heaven on that momentous occasion. 

There are still other brethren, noble and good, 
who think that kneeliitg on the same floor ^ and sing- 
ing the same hymns ^ and hearing the same sermon is 
Christian union. Why, the most devout Christian 
may be joined in these performances by the most 



CHRISTIAN UNION. 2O9 

blatant infidel, and the grossest sensualist. He 
sometimes is so joined; and, if that were Christian 
union, then there would be more of such union 
between him and these ungodly people than there 
is between the psalm singing Presbyterian and the 
hymn singing Presbyterian ! Brethren sometimes 
fondly think that this sort of union — this union of 
kneeling on the same floor, and singing the same 
hymns, and hearing the same sermon — that this 
sort of union is going to accomplish somewhat of 
that great result for which the Saviour desired the 
oneness of his people, viz: The convincing of the 
world that he is the Christ of God. But I tell 
you, with all the gravity of profound conviction, 
they are grievously mistaken. This old world is 
not a fool! You can say a great many hard 
things about it that would be true, but when you 
call it a fool you are wide, very wide of the mark, 
and perpetrate an egregious slander upon the 
world. That the world is much lacking in the 
highest wisdom is certainly true, but that it is a 
fool, in the ordinary sense, is far from the truth. 
And if you think the world is fooled when it sees 
different denominations of Christians kneeling on 
the same floor, you are the one that has been 
fooled. The world, somehow or other, has a 



2 TO CHRISTIAN UNION. 

shrewd suspicion that somewhere in the neighbor- 
hood of half of those bowed heads have come to that 
place of meeting with the hope, which they dare not 
avow, that the meeting may somehow redound to the 
advancement of this or that denomination to which 
they severally happen to belong. Fool whom ? 
Not the world. The world knows that 3^ou have 
not given up a single distinctive doctrine by coming 
there, and it would not respect you if you did. It 
knows you have not given up one jot of your 
devotion to your own church by coming there, and 
it only respects you the more for not doing so. 
What else does the world know about such a 
performance? This: That a number of Christian 
people, holding widely divergent views on some 
points, and agreeing upon others, are actually 
willing to come together on common ground and 
keep the peace, without sheriff or constable, for 
one short hour — a thing which they know that 
gentlemen^ without any religion at all, often do. 
The world sees the magnificent spectacle of Chris- 
tian men willing to come together and be gentlemen 
for an hour; willing to agree to disag^^ee ! Brethren, 
our Master prayed for something beyond that for 
his people. 

There are yet other loving, gentle, sentimental 



CHRISTIAN UNION. 211 

brethren whose beau ideal of Christian union is the 
coming of Cliristians of different sects around the 
same communion table. Said a Philadelphia 
preacher: ''The world cannot be converted until 
the church is united; and the church cannot be 
united until Baptists renounce close communion." 
Well, now, really, I think he ought to pass as a 
back number. Does not the brother know that 
there are no open communionists? Does he not 
know that Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, 
and Episcopalians are close communionists? Does 
he not know that these great bodies of Christians 
do not admit to the table any except those to whom 
they accord church fellowship? And does he not 
know that the great host of regular Baptist churches 
occupy tJie very same ground? All well-informed 
preachers who have looked into the subject with 
two good, straight eyes, know that such is precisely 
the truth. But this Philadelphia brother made 
another mistake besides his antiquated one, and it 
IS that which specially -concerns us now. It is: 
That to come around the same table to celebrate 
the Lord's Supper is the very acme of Christian 
union. It is here that he falls into the sentimental 
brother's procession. Who made the Lord's Supper 
a test or expression of Christian union? Did 



212 CHRISTIAN UNION. 

the Lord himself ? How many disciples were 
present when he instituted that ordinance? Just 
eleven, if we suppose that Judas had already 
left the room, or twelve if he was still there w^hen 
the Supper was instituted. Suppose Judas was 
there; where was the mother of our Lord ? and 
where were the other disciples who fondly loved 
Jesus ? Did Jesus mean, by having Judas present 
and all these others absent, that there was more 
union between Judas and John, for instance, than 
between John and Mary ? But suppose Judas was 
not there, did Jesus mean that John and Peter were 
united while John and Mary were not ? It seems 
to me that to believe that he meant anything of that 
sort is preposterous. The fact is, the Bible defines 
very precisely what he intended the Supper should 
show. What was that ? It takes no learning to 
tell. It is made very plain — it is so plain that some 
learning might be required to make it otherwise 
than plain. What does the Word say the Supper 
was to ^'show?" Was it to '^show" Christian 
union? Nay. Was it to ''show" the love of his 
disciples for each other ? Nay. What then ivas 
it to ''show?" His death: "As often as ye eat 
this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the 
Lord's death till he come," i Cor, ii ; 26, I pro- 



CHRISTIAN UNION. 213 

test that Jesus prayed for a union of his people 
which did not subsist as between the eleven and 
Judas, although they possibly sat at the same table, 
and which probably did subsist as between the 
eleven and Mary, the mother of Jesus, and those 
other holy women, though they did not sit together 
at that table. 

What, then, is the union for which he prayed? 
Let us try to learn. He made a comparison. He 
said: ''That they all may be one, as thou Father 
art in me and I in thee, that they also may be 
one in us." And again: ''That they may be one, 
as w^e are one." He prayed that his people might 
be one, and that their oneness should be like the 
oneness of the Father and the Son in the blessed 
Trinity. This comparison opens up before us a 
scene of diversity in unity and 7niity in diversity^ 
that is to say, there is unity without sameness, and 
diversity without schism. 

Now, let us see if we cannot get a clear concep- 
tion of this comparison between the Divine and the 
human. Of course such a comparison must be 
understood as necessarily confined within limits. 
If it were not so confined, we should be supposing 
the distinction between the Divine and the human 
susceptible of being blotted out. I conceive that. 



214 CHRISTIAN UNION. 

within these limits, there zx^ four imiiics possible as 
entering into the conception of the oneness of his 
disciples for which Jesus prayed. If still others are 
possible, they, too, ought to be included in the 
ideal oneness of Christians. For I hold that his 
conception comprehended everything of the sort 
that is possible within the characteristic, necessary 
limitation that belongs to the human. 
What are \^\^ four tmitics ? 

1. The first I mention, as primary and as sub- 
tending all the rest, is Uuity of Life. It is the 
Christ life in Christians. That is what Jesus means 
when he says: ''I in them;'^ it is what Paul 
means when he says: '^Christ in you;" and again: 
''Christ liveth in me." All real Christians have 
this life, and are one in that particular. It is the 
Christ-life in us that makes us Christians at all. 
Without that we are in the gall of bitterness and in 
the bonds of iniquity. 

2. The second unity I mention is Unity of Spirit. 
''Let this mind be in you," sa3^s the apostle, 
"which was also in Christ Jesus." Just in propor- 
tion as Christians have the spirit, the mind, the 
disposition of Christ are they one in spirit. And I 
may add that just in proportion as the Christ-life de- 
velops in them will they have the Christ-disposition. 



CHRISTIAN UNION. 215 

3. The third unity I mention is Unity of Purpose, 
The one great purpose of all Christians ought to be 
to do the Master's will, and so to bring on the 
millennial glory. 

4. The fourth unity is Unity of Doctrine and E^i- 
deavor, I put doctrine and endeavor together be- 
cause those who agree in doctrine are generally 
most closely united in Christian endeavor. Some 
will ask: ^'Do you mean to say that all Christians 
ought to hold the same form of doctrine?" Most 
certainly I do. Then the next question that may be 
asked is this: ^'Do you think all Christians ought 
to unite with yon f ." That is what these oil}- 
tongued declaimers about Christian union generally 
mean. They say all Christians ought to unite — 
they do say it so sweetly. Why, their mouths are 
honey itself; but the upshot of the business is, 
when 3^ou get down below the honey 3^ou find that, 
at heart, they mean that all Christians ought to 
unite zuith them! They remind you of the story of 
the two Baptist deacons. These two deacons had 
' 'fallen out." One said to the other: ''This is all 
wrong, brother — this difference between us. We 
certainly ought to be reconciled, and I do beseech 
you to be reconciled, for / cannot be ! " 

Now, brethren, it seems to me very clear that 



2l6 CHRISTIAN UNION. 

these ''four unities'' which I have mentioned must 
be comprehended in any full-orbed conception of 
the oneness of Christians for which Jesus prayed. 
You cannot think of the Father and the Son in the 
blessed Trinity as differing in life, or in spirit, or 
in purpose, or as holding divergent views of truth, 
or as so differing in endeavor or operation, that the 
operation of one, in any way, neutralizes or 
weakens the effect of the operation of the other. 
They are certainly one in life, in spirit, in purpose, 
and in doctrine and endeavor. A oneness of that 
kind is a possible human condition. So much, at 
least, therefore, is comprehended in the oneness 
for which Jesus prayed. These ''four unities" 
must be brought into our conception of that for 
which he prayed. And, I repeat, if any other 
unity which I have not mentioned is possible to the 
Holy Trinity and humanity in common, that alsD 
ought to be comprehended in our conception of the 
oneness of Christians for which he prayed. 
The question now naturally comes up as to 

II. HOW SUCH CHRISTIAN UNION IS TO BE 
PROMOTED. 

Certainly not by acrimonious controversy. That 
is unchristian; and, surely, we may safely say that 



CHRISTIAN UNION. 217 

a truly Christian condition is not to be brought 
about by an unchristian method. The effect of 
such controversy is bad, and only bad. It stirs up 
unlovely feelings; it retards the development of the 
Christ-life in those who engage in it, and often in 
a large circle of such as become interested in the 
controversy; it arouses prejudice, that great foe of 
the truth, and so hinders, instead of helping, the 
truth. 

Nor is Christian union promoted by compromise. 
The coolness of some of the compromises proposed 
is refreshing. A high ecclesiastical dignitary, a 
right reverend lusty advocate of Christian union, 
very complacently and expectantly calls upon all 
Christians just to come along and stand upon a 
compromise platform which his deft hands have 
built. And, when we examine the platform, what 
do we find ? All the planks of his old platform 
that he cares anything about! It is the same old 
cry: ''This is all wrong — our being divided; we 
ought to be reconciled ; therefore you be reconciled, 
for / cannot." 

The fact is, when you talk about a compromise 
along here, you have not considered what you are 
talking about. What are proper objects to com- 
promise, anyhow ! Rights and policies are. Your 



2l8 CHRISTIAN UNION. 

rights are yom's ; and you are at liberty to give 
them up for the sake of harmony, and there may 
be cases when it is your duty to do that. Your 
policies are simply your ideas as to the best 
methods for accomplishing results. If you are 
acting in connection with others, there may be 
difference of. opinion with regard to the best 
method. There is room for yielding — in whole or 
in part — on either side. But rights and policies are 
different from principles — right is a ver}^ different 
thing from rights. If you think a thing is rights 
you are not at libert}^ to compromise it; if you have 
rights you are at liberty to give them up. Al- 
though you think a certain policy is most expedient, 
for the sake of harmony in action you may properly 
give it up ; but if you think a certain principle is 
right, you are bound to stand by it, though you 
stand alone. 

How do these reflections apply to the matter in 
hand? Just this way: When a man proposes to 
me to compromise with him in the matter of reli- 
gious belief, he is simply asking me to do what I 
have no right to do and what I cannot do. I 
equally cannot and ought not. How can I ? I 
believe that God's word teaches certain things, and 
he believes that it teaches certain things. The sum 



CHRISTIAN UNION. 219 

total of my belief and the sum total of his belief, 
when put side by side, are found to differ in ten 
points, we will say; and he proposes that, if I 
will change on five points to his belief, he will 
change on five points to mine — for example, if I 
will give up immersion as baptism, he will give up 
episcopacy in church government! That is child- 
ish! If I believe that God's word teaches immer- 
sion, can I change my opinion just to be in har- 
mony with him? and if he believes that God's 
word teaches episcopacy, can he change his opin- 
ion just to be in harmony with me? Are opinions 
changed in that way? Now, in all frankness, can 
we change our belief just to be in harmony? And, 
if w^e cotcld, ought w^ to do so? Conjure ourselves 
into believing what we do not believe, just to be in 
harmony? Oh, no! A man that's a man will not 
say so when he looks at it. 

We cannot really change our beliefs any such 
w^ay as that. It is all foolishness to suppose that 
w^e can. But what about a nominal , make believe 
union on a creed fixed up as a compromise, and 
not really held by any of the parties to the compro- 
mise ? There are two fatal objections to that. 
One is that it is a make-believe and a sham. The 
other objection is that the parties would be no 



220 CHRISTIAN UNION. 

more united after they stepped up on that sort of a 
platform than they were before. In other words, 
if compromise were right, it would not promote the 
union for which Christ prayed. 

Still again. Christian union is not promoted by 
iinproper proselytism. There is a proper and an im- 
proper proselytism. There is no use for Christian 
people to indulge in any foolishness along this line. 
Each denomination stands for certain principles in 
the world, which distinquish it from all others. If 
any denomination does not think its distinctive 
principles worth contending for in all Ch7'istia7i 
ways, it ought to go out of business — it is guilty of 
what, by its own confession, is a needless schism 
in the body of Christ. If it does think its distinc- 
tive principles give it a right to exist, then it ought 
to propagate those principles in all Christian ways. 
What are some Christian ways? A public procla- 
mation of those principles, in a Christian spirit, is 
one. It is a right and duty of a Christian minister, 
in his own pulpit to preach the distinctive doctrine 
of his denomination. He is not to do this continu- 
ally, as if those distinctive doctrines were all of the 
gospel. He should try to give them about the 
same prominence in his preaching that is given 
them in the scriptures. He may expect some pros- 



CHRISTIAN UNION. 221 

elytes in this way; and, if they come, he is enti- 
tled to them, and no Christian man has any right 
to complain of the preacher. Again, if a member 
of one denomination gives a member of another 
denomination to understand that he would like to 
have the doctrine of the other denomination ex- 
pounded, of course the desire should be gratified; 
and, if a proselyte is thus made, nobody ought to 
complain. In both the cases I have supposed, it is 
a perfectly legitimate proselytism, effected on 
Christian principles. In most striking contrast to 
that would be a proselytism attempted by the 
method of simple persuasion to leave one denomi- 
nation and join another. A goes to B and says: 
''You join my church; it will be better for this 
reason or that reason or some other reason of con- 
venience or interest." There are two improper 
things about such a procedure as that. In the first 
place, it is impertinent. What right has one gen- 
tleman to assume that another does not know what 
church he wishes to be a member of? It is imper- 
tinent; and impertinence is unchristian. In the 
second place, it is an attempt to persuade a man to 
forsake what he is supposed to regard as right, for 
convenience or self-interest of some sort; and that, 
too, is unchristian. Those who are friends of 



222 CHRISTIAN UNION. 

Christian union need not expect to promote it by 
unchristian proselytism. 

What are some of the ways in which it may be 
promoted? 

By genuine Christian courtesy is one way. I say 
genuine Christian courtesy. There often passes 
for Christian courtesy what is not g'enuinely so. I 
have been around just a little in my life; and some- 
times I have gone with my eyes open, and made 
some observations in my going. Here is one thing 

I have observed: One denomination wall treat an- 

• 

other, not as a band of brethren in w^hose welfare 
they delight, but as a sort of machine or animated 
things which they wall use to their own advantage, 
if they can; and if they are not right sure they 
can use it in that way, they will let the thing alone, 
lest they might get hurt. Now, any such dealing 
with Christian brethren is simply mean. A genuine 
Christian courtesy does not hurt anybody ; and it 
promotes Christian union. 

By fair7tess is another way to promote Christian 
union. Another thing w^hich I have observed, with 
great pain, as I have gone around in the w^orld, is 
that Christian denominations are not always fair 
with each other. There is sometimes a manifest 
desire on the part of one to place another in a false 



CHRISTIAN UNION. 223 

position before the public. Sometimes false isstccs 
are made. As an example of a false issue, I refer 
you to the words which I have already quoted from 
a Philadelphia preacher with regard to what he was 
pleased to call the ''close communion" of Baptists. 
Now, if a man, through ignorance^ represents the 
Baptists as differing, at this point, from the great 
majority of the Christians of the world, I can re- 
spect him as a man, while I am sorry that he does 
not know better ; but if^for. the sake of appealing 
to the prejudices of others^ lie deliberately makes a 
false issue^ I have no respect for his manhood, to 
say nothing of his religion. You brethren of other 
denominations, I have no doubt, can readily think 
of cases where your churches have been misrepre- 
sented by others in a similar manner, and 3^ou have 
felt with regard to such a procedure just about as 
I have expressed myself. The Christian thing to 
do is to be scrupulously /<r?^;7 and that sort of deal- 
ing will promote Christian union. 

The third and last way I mention is by loyalty to 
what each regards as truth. That may seem to 
some to be the very surest way to prevent Christian 
union. You may say that, if there is not yielding 
somewhere, we shall never get together, in doctrine 



224 CHRISTIAN UNION. 

and endeavor, at least, if we do in other respects. 
But I am persuaded that you are mistaken. It is 
one of my clearest convictions, growing out of 
earnest consideration for man^^ years, that Christian 
sects must work towards Christian union alone the 
straight and narrow way of loyalty to what they 
regard as the teaching of God^s word. If loyalty to 
truth, in firmness and genuine Christian courtesy, 
don't work out unity of faith and practice, I cannot 
see how it is going to be worked out at all. This 
is a platform upon which all Christians, not too 
mean to deserve the name, can meet with sincere 
respect for each other. You take God's word and 
study it. Be true and loyal to what it seems to you 
to teach. I take the same word and study it. I 
will be true and loyal to what it seems to me to 
teach. We will treat each other with genuine 
courtesy and scrupulous fairness. The way is then 
open for the full and free play of your convictions 
upon me, and of mine upon you, without any hin- 
drance put in the way by discourtesy and unfair- 
ness. The result may be the modification of my 
views of the teaching of God's word in some par- 
ticular, or of yours, or of both. We are then 
nearer together in doctrine than we were before. 



CHRISTIAN UNION. 225 

and the change is a real one, and not fixed-up, 
make-believe and sham. Carry that idea out into 
the wider field of the denominations as a whole. 
There is interaction. Modifications occur insensi- 
bly. The sects get nearer together in faith and 
practice. The change is genuine. Any sham 
foolishness, instead of helping that movement for- 
ward, would check it. It is a growth^ and any 
attempt to force it would result like an injudicious 
effort to force the growth of a plant until it was 
killed by the forcing agency — in one case you 
would have a dry, dead stem, instead of a beauti- 
ful, full-grown tree ; in the other, you would have 
the dead trunk of Muiformity ^ instead of the full- 
grown, living unity. By the forcing or compro- 
mise process you could, at best, get only a union of 
sects ^ which would be the very quintessence of sec- 
tarianism ; you could not possibly get the union of 
Christians for which Christ prayed. That must 
come as a growth, as a survival of the fittest. 
What each believes to be the teaching of God's 
word must be pressed with true loyalty ; the truth 
will eventually prevail ; the fittest will survive. 

By a courteous, fair and loyal promulgation of 
the truth of God's word, as we understand it, then, 



226 CHRISTIAN UNION. 

we are each to do his best towards bringing about 
the glad day when the prayer of the Master shall 
be fully granted, and all his people shall be one in 
life, one in spirit, one in purpose, and one in doc- 
trine and endeavor. 



f3U33; 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

021 219 729 4 



mMm: 






■m'*^ 



1 



It 






Kr^ 









I 



i 












v1« 



;;,,,i:^<;5||!fy- 





•;i;;|.^i:V.vfi^^;^'4j:<v;;^^ilj:/; 



